green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
9.1 score
“although 28 u.s.c. 1338 (a) and 15 u.s.c. 1121 give the district courts jurisdiction over actions relating to trademarks, those jurisdictional provisions do not waive the sovereign immunity of the united states.”
Treatment trajectory · 1980 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1980
2003
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 13 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Miles v. United States
we therefore conclude that we have no jurisdiction over claims for trademark infringement.
examined
Cited as authority (quoted)
Proxtronics Dosimetry, LLC v. United States
although 28 u.s.c. 1338 (a) and 15 u.s.c. 1121 give the district courts jurisdiction over actions relating to trademarks, those jurisdictional provisions do not waive the sovereign immunity of the united states.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Farmer v. United States
The Court of Claims, the predecessor court whose decisions are binding here, described the role of pendent jurisdiction in this forum as “uncertain.” Lockridge v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 687, 689 (1978) (citation omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
John W. Moore of J. Moore Definitives and the John W. Moore Lectureship v. United States
Lockridge v. United States, 218 Ct.Cl. 687, 688 (1978). 4 For the reasons stated, the Clerk is directed to: (1) permit the complaint to be filed without payment of filing fees and other court costs and (ii) enter judgment dismissing the complaint, in part, for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted and, in part, for lack of jurisdiction. 5 Summary affirmance is appropriate, inter alia, when the position of one party is so clearly correct as a matter of law that no substantial question regarding the outcome of an appeal exists.
cited
Cited "see"
Ingram Bey v. Franks
See Metaphyzic El-Ectromagnetic Supreme-El, 2015 WL 1138246 , at *3 (citing Johnson-El v. United States, 650 F.2d 288 (Ct. Cl. 1980)).
discussed
Cited "see"
Hephzibah v. United States
See Lockridge v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 687, 688-90 (1978). 6 5 The provisions of Article VI relied upon by plaintiff --- the Supremacy Clause and the oath of office requirement --- have nothing to do with our court's authority to grant injunctive relief. 6 Though cases alleging trademark infringement are not within our court's jurisdiction, this is not to say that all cases involving trademarks will fall outside -7- Because this court lacks jurisdiction to award monetary relief for Ms. Hephzibah's trademark claims (or any of her other claims), there can be no equitable relief that is "tie…
discussed
Cited "see"
Oneal P. Belmonte, Jr., D/B/A Cousins Paint & Drywall Supply, L.L.C. v. United States
See Johnson-El v. United States, 650 F.2d 288 (Ct. Cl. 1980) (table); Wismiller v. United States, 135 F. Supp. 438, 440 (Ct. Cl. 1956), cert. denied, 350 U.S. 936 (1956); Rose v. United States, 2010 WL 4340950 , at *2 (Fed.
discussed
Cited "see"
Liberty Ammunition, Inc. v. United States
See Lockridge v. United States, 218 Ct.Cl. 687, 689 (1978) (“The role of ‘pendent jurisdiction’ in this court is uncertain.” (citing Eastport S.S.
discussed
Cited "see"
Scott v. United States
See True Transp., Inc., 650 F.2d 288 , 224 Ct.Cl. 703, 705 (1980), where the court granted defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment on the ground that the three year statute of limitations period under 49 U.S.C. § 304a(8)(A) (1976) (amended and codified at 49 U.S.C. § 11706 (f)(1)) controlled; Bowman Transp., Inc. v. United States, 597 F.2d 254 , 220 Ct.Cl. 36 (1979); Iran Nat’l Airlines Corp. v. United States, 360 F.2d 640 , 642 & n. 1, 175 Ct.Cl. 504 (1966).
discussed
Cited "see"
Tsosie v. United States
See Begay v. United States, 224 Ct.Cl. 712 , 650 F.2d 288 (1980), cert. denied, 450 U.S. 1040 , 101 S.Ct. 1758 , 68 L.Ed.2d 238 (1981) (Begay II); Begay v. United States, 219 Ct.Cl. 599 (1979) (Begay I); Hebah v. United States, 197 Ct.Cl. 729 , 456 F.2d 696 , cert. denied, 409 U.S. 870 , 93 S.Ct. 199 , 34 L.Ed.2d 121 (1972) (Hebah II); Hebah v. United States, 192 Ct.Cl. 785 , 428 F.2d 1334 (1970) (Hebah I); Brown v. United States, 32 Ct.Cl. 432 (1897) (Brown II); Brown v. United States, 32 Ct.Cl. 411 (1897) (Brown I).
discussed
Cited "see"
ATL, Inc. v. United States
See Lockridge v. United States, 218 Ct.Cl. 687 (1978); and see also Aldinger v. Howard, 427 U.S. 1, 17-18 , 96 S.Ct. 2413, 2421-2422 , 49 L.Ed.2d 276 (1976), and Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct.Cl. 599, 613-14 , 372 F.2d 1002, 1012-13 (1967).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sacchetti v. United States
S 1121 (a) (2012) ("The district and tenitorial courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction and the courts of appeal of the United States (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have appellate jurisdiction, of all actions arising under [the Lanham Act.]"); see also Lockridqe v. United States, 218 Ct. Cl. 687, 689 (1978) ("We therefore conclude that we have no jurisdiction over claims for trademark infringement."); Proxtronics Dosimetry.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
Sacchetti v. United States
See 15 U.S.C. § 1121 (a) (2012) (“The district and territorial courts of the United States shall have original jurisdiction and the courts of appeal of the United States (other than the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit) shall have appellate jurisdiction, of all actions arising under [the Lanham Act.]”); see also Lockridge v. United States, 218 Ct.Cl. 687, 689 (1978) (“We therefore conclude that we have no jurisdiction over claims for trademark infringement.”); Proxtronics Dosimetry, LLC v. United States, 128 Fed.Cl. 656, 672 , 2016 WL 5757156, at *11 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
JAMES E. LOCKRIDGE
v.
THE UNITED STATES
v.
THE UNITED STATES
No. 58-78.
United States Court of Claims.
Jul 18, 1980.
Cited by 13 opinions | Published
Citer courts: Federal Claims (1)
On July 18, 1980 the court entered judgment for plaintiff in the amount of $10,200.