28 U.S.C. § 1501
Pensions
The United States Court of Federal Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for a pension.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 8
cases, 1953–2019 · leading case: Johns-Manville Corporation and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation v. The United States
Johns-Manville Corporation and Johns-Manville Sales Corporation v. The United States (1988)
“As the per curiam indicates, it was at that date in the revised statutes and apparently was overlooked by the Tucker Act’s authors, though other limitations were not: for example, the prohibition on suits on pensions, right next to section 1500 in the present code, 28 U.S.C. §…”
Howell v. United States (2016)
“”) Moreover, plaintiffs’ argument fails on the plain language of 28 U.S.C. § 1501 , which states, “[t]he United States Court of Fedei'al Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for a pension.”
Hortentia R. Acosta v. The United States (1963)
“Under 28 U.S.C. § 1501 , this court does “not have jurisdiction of any claim for a pension” such as the claim of an un-remarried widow (like plaintiff) for benefits from the Veterans Administration.”
John L. Hostinsky v. United States (1961)
“” If it were a pension, this court would have no jurisdiction of suits to recover retired pay ( 28 U.S.C. § 1501 ), and, yet, we constantly take jurisdiction of such suits, and no one questions our authority to do so.”
Anderson v. United States (1953)
“” And the Court of Claims, from which jurisdiction of pension claims has also been withheld under 28 U.S.C.A. § 1501 , in holding that the word did not apply to the retirement pay of federal judges, said that “it is to be doubted whether Congress in excepting from our…”
Torti v. United States (1956)
“Furthermore, title 28 U. S. C. § 1501 provides: The Court of Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for a pension.”
Paresky v. United States (2018)
“) limitations; 28 U.S.C § 1501; split in the ) circuits over basis of claim to overpayment UNITED STATES, ) interest; transfer; 28 U.”
Blodgett v. United States (2019)
“” 28 U.S.C. § 1501 . We likewise conclude that the Claims Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over Blodgett’s torts claims.”
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.