Akin Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev. & Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., Etc., 475 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1973). · Go Syfert
Akin Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Sec'y of Hous. & Urban Dev. & Dep't of Hous. & Urban Dev., Etc., 475 F.2d 1261 (5th Cir. 1973). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
9 citation events across 7 distinct courts.
Cited for
At page 1262 cited at this page1 citing case
  • Winston Bros. Co. v. United States, 371 F. Supp. 130 (D. Minn. 1973).published
    Akin Mobile Homes, Inc. v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development, 475 F.2d 1261, 1262 (5th Cir. 1973); Putnam Mills Corp. v. United States, 432 F.2d 553, 554 (2d Cir. 1970); Murray v. United States, 132 App.D.C. 91 , 405 F.2d 1361, 1366…
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
AKIN MOBILE HOMES, INC., Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
SECRETARY OF HOUSING & URBAN DEVELOPMENT and Department of Housing & Urban Development, Etc., Defendants-Appellees
72-3572.
Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit.
Mar 5, 1973.
Published opinion
475 F.2d 1261
1973 U.S. App. LEXIS 11325
Thomas M. Hendricks, Jr., Pigford & Hendricks, Howard R. Pigford, Meridian, Miss., for plaintiff-appellant., Robert E. Hauberg, U. S. Atty., Joseph E. Brown, Jr., Asst. U. S. Atty., Jackson, Miss., for defendants-appellees.
Brown, Dyer, Simpson.
Cited by 9 opinions  |  Published
PER CURIAM:

The appellant’s suit was dismissed below without prejudice to the plaintiff’s right to sue the United States under the Tucker Act [1] in the U. S. Court of Claims. [2]

The suit arose out of a dispute concerning contractual negotiations between the parties for the lease on an emergency basis of approximately 400 mobile homes to HUD for the use of residents of Southern Mississippi rendered homeless by Hurricane Camille, which struck the Mississippi Gulf Coast on August 17, 1969. According to the complaint the plaintiff was required to pay state and local taxes in the amount of $76,002.25, an item not contemplated in the telegraphic negotiations between the parties. The complaint alleged that HUD had renegotiated other contracts to take care of similar inequities with other lessors similarly situated, and that officials of HUD had failed and refused to renegotiate appellant’s contract.

The district judge was not in error in concluding that this case should be dismissed for lack of jurisdiction and further that Title 12, U.S.C., Section 1702, does not provide a basis for concurrent jurisdiction of the district court with the Court of Claims. The judgment appealed from is Affirmed.

1

. The amount claimed exceeded the district court’s $10,000 limitation pi jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, Title 28, U.S.C., Section 1346(a)(2).

2

. The memorandum-opinion and judgment of the lower court are reported sub nom. Akin Mobile Homes, Inc., a Mississippi Corporation v. Secretary of Housing & Urban Development and Department of Housing & Urban Development, An Agency of the U. S. Government, Washington, D.C., S.D.Miss.1972, 354 F.Supp. 1036.