green
Positive treatment
6.2 score
Treatment trajectory · 1991 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1991
2008
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited "see"
Shawna Winter v. U.S. Postal Service
See Perry v. U.S. Postal Service, 46 M.S.P.R. 456 , 460-61 (1990) (declining to consider an allegation that the U.S. Postal Service violated provisions of its Employee Labor Relations Manual because the appellant had not established Board jurisdiction), aff’d, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Randolph Hitchcockbey v. United States Postal Service
See Perry v. U.S. Postal Service, 46 M.S.P.R. 425 , 431 (1990), aff’d, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Randolph Hitchcockbey v. United States Postal Service
See Perry v. U.S. Postal Service, 46 M.S.P.R. 425 , 431 (1990), aff’d, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Kannady v. United States
See Wildman v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 494, 495 (1993) (citing Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 178 , 179 n.2 (1990), aff'd, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991)).
cited
Cited "see"
Christopher J. Perillo v. United States Postal Service
Cir. 2000); see Perry v. U.S. Postal Service, 46 M.S.P.R. 456 , 460-61 (1990), aff’d, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.
cited
Cited "see"
Wagstaff v. United States
See Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 178 , 179 n. 2 (1990) (“[T]his court has ... no jurisdiction over cases arising under the Civil Rights Act.”), aff'd, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991) (table).
discussed
Cited "see"
Stamps v. United States
See Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 178, 179 (1990), aff'd, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991) (finding that section 1986 does not provide a basis for jurisdiction in the United States Court of Federal Claims and that jurisdiction over civil rights cases resides in the United States District Courts).
discussed
Cited "see"
Anderson v. United States
(2×)
See Anderson v. United States, No. 91-5051, 937 F.2d 623 , 1991 WL 100830 at *3 (1991) (appellate court held that the Claims Court did in fact have jurisdiction to hear the claim; nonetheless, the appellate court found that plaintiff had no right to reenlist).
discussed
Cited "see"
Lois A. Sims v. United States Postal Service
See Perry v. United States Postal Serv., 46 M.S.P.R. 456 (1990), aff'd, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991). 7 Finally, this court does not have jurisdiction over Sims' contention that the Postal Service was obligated to restore her to duty as a qualified handicapped person under the Rehabilitation Act. 5 U.S.C. § 7703 (b)(2) (1995); King v. Lynch, 21 F.3d 1084 (Fed.Cir.1994) (this court has no jurisdiction over cases arising under the Rehabilitation Act).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
May v. United States
See 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a) (authorizing “district courts” to adjudicate claims); see also Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 178 , 179 n. 2 (1990) (“[T]his court has ... no jurisdiction over eases arising under the Civil Rights Act.”), aff'd, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991) (table); see also Willis v. United States, 96 Fed.Cl. 467, 470 (2011) (“It is well-settled that jurisdiction for civil rights claims, including section 1985 claims, lies exclusively in the district courts; not in the Court of Federal Claims.”).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Schweitzer v. United States
See, e.g., Stamps v. United States, 73 Fed.Cl. 603, 609-10 (2006) (citing Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 178, 179 (1990), aff'd, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991)); Simmons v. United States, 71 Fed.Cl. 188, 193-94 (2006) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (a)(4) (2000); Blassingame v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 504, 505 (1995); Montoya v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 568, 571 (1991)); Marlin v. United States, 63 Fed.Cl. 475, 476 (2005) (citing Wildman v. United States, 28 Fed.Cl. 494, 495 (1993); Osborn v. United States, 47 Fed.Cl. 224, 232 (2000)); McCauley v. United States, 38 Fed.Cl. 250, 265-66 (1997).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Cullman Regional Medical Center v. Shalala
See also Rydeen v. Quigg, 748 F.Supp. 900, 905-906 (D.D.C. 1990) (court must independently assess the facts and the law), aff’d mem., 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991); cert. denied, 502 U.S. 1075 , 112 S.Ct. 974 , 117 L.Ed.2d 138 (1992).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Sanders v. United States
See, e.g., Anderson v. United States, 22 Cl.Ct. 178 , 179 n. 2 (1990), aff'd, 937 F.2d 623 (Fed.Cir.1991); Parker v. United States, 230 Ct.Cl. 974, 976 , 1982 WL 25291 (1982).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Barrett Refining Corporation
v.
The United States
v.
The United States
91-1112.
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit.
Jun 10, 1991.
Unpublished
Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
BARRETT REFINING CORPORATION, Appellant,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Appellee.
No. 91-1112.
United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.
June 10, 1991.
PER CURIAM
Before NIES, Chief Judge, and RICH and MICHEL, Circuit Judges:
1
AFFIRMED. See Fed.Cir.R. 36.