28 U.S.C. § 1500

Pendency of claims in other courts

Read at: OLRCuscode.house.gov CornellLII GovInfogovinfo.gov JustiaTitle 28 CasesGoogle Scholar

The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States or any person who, at the time when the cause of action alleged in such suit or process arose, was, in respect thereto, acting or professing to act, directly or indirectly under the authority of the United States.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 534 cases (53 in the last 5 years), 1954–2026 · leading case: Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Keene Corp. v. United States, 508 U.S. 200 (1993). · cites it 13× “We hold that 28 U. S. C. § 1500 consequently precludes Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction over Keene's actions and affirm the dismissal of its complaints.”

Brandt v. United States, 710 F.3d 1369 (Fed. Cir. 2013). · cites it 10× “Brandt Revocable Trust (collectively, “Brandt” or “plaintiffs”) appeal from the final decision of the United States Court of Federal Claims dismissing their takings claim for lack of jurisdic- tion under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 . Brandt v. United States, 102 Fed.”

Johns-Manville Corp. & Johns-Manville Sales Corp. v. The United States, 855 F.2d 1556 (Fed. Cir. 1988). · cites it 14× “The order required the United States to state its position on the applicability of 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (1982). In its present form section 1500 states: The United States Claims Court shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee…”

United States v. Tohono O’odham Nation, 131 S. Ct. 1723 (2011). · cites it 6× “The CFC case was dismissed under 28 U. S. C. §1500 , which bars CFC jurisdiction over a claim if the plaintiff has another suit “for or in respect to” that claim pending against the United States or its agents in another court.”

Ak-Chin Indian Cmty. v. United States, 80 Fed. Cl. 305 (Fed. Cl. 2008). · cites it 16× “See 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2008). Defendant filed Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to 28 U.”

Hill v. United States, 8 Cl. Ct. 382 (Ct. Cl. 1985). · cites it 23× “GIBSON, Judge: This opinion addresses defendant’s motion to dismiss, under RUSCC 12(b)(1), for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (1982). Plaintiff strenuously opposes the motion on the premise that the operative facts make § 1500 inapposite.”

Mastrolia v. United States, 91 Fed. Cl. 369 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 10× “Before the Court is Defendant’s October 2, 2009 motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s July 20, *374 2009 complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Rules of the Court of Federal Claims (“RCFC”) and 28 U.S.C. § 1500 . This case concerns a settlement agreement that Plaintiff…”

Vero Technical Support, Inc. v. United States, 94 Fed. Cl. 784 (Fed. Cl. 2010). · cites it 16× “” Vero further indicated that “timely determination of the jurisdictional issue is requested to avoid prejudicing VTS under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 with respect to any appeal it may need to take of the district court’s dismissal, should this Court also find it lacks jurisdiction.”

Unr Indus., Inc., Unarco Indus., Inc., & Eagle Picher Indus., Inc. v. The United States, Keene Corp. v. The United States, 962 F.2d 1013 (Fed. Cir. 1992). · cites it 8× “, and Keene Corporation because it lacked jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (1988). An earlier judgment and the opinion of this court, 911 F.”

Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 862 F.3d 1370 (Fed. Cir. 2017). · cites it 4× “The Court of Federal Claims subsequently held that the remaining temporary takings claims were barred by 28 U.S.C. § 1500 . Petro-Hunt, L.L.C. v. United States, 105 Fed.”

Keene Corp. v. United States, 12 Cl. Ct. 197 (Ct. Cl. 1987). · cites it 17× “16-84C, for lack of jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (1982). An order entered on February 13, 1987, limited the initial ruling on defendant’s motion to the three cases pending as Johns-Manville Corp.”

Forsgren v. United States, 73 Fed. Cl. 135 (Fed. Cl. 2006). · cites it 20× “Defendant seeks dismissal of plaintiffs’ complaint pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1500 (2000), which bars jurisdiction in the United States Court of Federal Claims (“Court of Federal Claims”) if a plaintiff has the same claim pending in another court.”

Show all 534 citing cases →

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.