How cited: Allred v. United States · Go Syfert

Allred v. United States (1995)

green · 26 citation events across 2 courts. Showing the 16 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1995 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
199520102026
green Davis v. United States (1996)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl. · 3 citations in this opinion
Mired v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 353 (1995).
Quote Authority · Fed. Cl. · signal: see · 2 citations in this opinion
See Allred, 33 Fed.Cl. at 356 (“[A]ny right of the plaintiffs in the IHS health care benefits is merely procedural in nature, and does not constitute property for the purposes of the Takings Clause.”).
“[A]ny right of the plaintiffs in the IHS health care benefits is merely procedural in nature, and does not constitute property for the purposes of the Takings Clause.”
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Defendant argues, correctly, that the due process clause of the Fifth Amendment “ ‘does not give rise to an action for money damages as required by the Tucker Act.’ ” Cf. Def.’s Reply 7 (quoting Addington, 94 Fed.Cl. at 783 ); Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 353 (1995) (“Case law clearly establishes that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment neither explicitly nor implicitly obligated] the federal government to pay damages.” (alteration in original) (interna…
“Case law clearly establishes that the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment neither explicitly nor implicitly obligated] the federal government to pay damages.” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks omitted)
green Doe v. United States (2006)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Instead, a plaintiff must specifically identify the contract or money-mandating provision that vests this court with jurisdiction.”) (citing Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 353 (1995)).
Rule Authority · D.N.M.
Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 357 (1995).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 355 (1995).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.
green Warr v. United States (2000)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Id. “[A] plaintiff must specifically identify the contract or money-mandating provision that vests this court with jurisdiction.” Id. (citing Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 353 (1995)).
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 353 (1995).
green Sloan v. United States (1996)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 353 (1995) appeal dismissed 78 F.3d 602 (Fed.Cir.1996); Ewing v. United States, 36 Fed.Cl. 159 (1996).
green Ewing v. United States (1996)
Rule Authority · Fed. Cl.
Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.
Cited (see also) · Fed. Cl. · signal: see also
Cir. 2006); see also Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.
explaining that IHCIA is not money mandating because of its discretionary language
Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: see
See Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 356 (1995).
Cited (see also) · Fed. Cl. · signal: see, e.g.
See e.g., Crocker v. United States, 37 Fed.Cl. 191, 197 , aff'd, 125 F.3d 1475 (Fed.Cir.1997), Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 350-51 (1995), appeal dismissed, 78 F.3d 602 (Fed.Cir.1996), Heagy v. United States, 12 Cl.Ct. 694, 697-98 (1987), aff'd, 848 F.2d 1244 (Fed.Cir.1988).
Cited (see also) · Fed. Cl. · signal: see also
See also Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 350-51 (1995) (APA does not provide for money relief, thus no jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims).
APA does not provide for money relief, thus no jurisdiction in the Court of Federal Claims
Cited · Fed. Cl. · signal: see
See Allred v. United States, 33 Fed.Cl. 349, 353 (1995).