28 U.S.C. § 1506
Repealed. Pub. L. 97–164, title I, § 133(h), Apr. 2, 1982, 96 Stat. 41]
[repealed]
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 91
cases, 1960–2012 · leading case: United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012).
United States v. Bormes, 133 S. Ct. 12 (2012). “The third statute in the Tucker Act trio, the Indian Tucker Act, 28 U. S. C. § 1506 , “confers a like waiver for Indian tribal claims that ‘otherwise would be cognizable in the Court of Federal Claims if the claimant were not an Indian tribe.”
Amell v. United States, 384 U.S. 158 (1966). “912, 28 U. S. C. § 1506 . Simultaneously, Congress abolished the distinction between public and merchant vessels, a matter which had sorely confused attorneys and had caused misfilings in the past, S.”
Acceptance Ins. Companies Inc. v. United States, 503 F.3d 1328 (Fed. Cir. 2007). “28 U.S.C. § 1506 (d) states in pertinent part that “[t]he district courts of the United States .”
Aetna Cas. & Sur. Co. v. United States, 228 Ct. Cl. 146 (Ct. Cl. 1981). “Accordingly, I would retransfer this case under 28 U.S.C. § 1506 (1976) back to the District Court in the hope that that court will reconsider its jurisdiction against HUD under 12 U.”
Inv. Co. Inst. v. Bd. of Governors of the Fed. Reserve Sys., 551 F.2d 1270 (D.C. Cir. 1977). “The “model” referred to is 28 U.S.C. § 1506 : If a case within the exclusive jurisdiction of the district courts is filed in the Court of Claims, the Court of Claims shall, if it be in the interest of justice, transfer such case to any district court in which it could have been…”
Nw. Marine Iron Works v. United States, 203 Ct. Cl. 629 (Ct. Cl. 1974). “912 , 28 U.S.C. § 1506 . It is only where a district court would not assume jurisdiction under the Suits in Admiralty Act that we may justifiably permit the claim to be litigated here [footnote omitted].”
Peoples Apparel, Ltd., 226 Ct. Cl. 515 (Ct. Cl. 1980). “28 U.S.C. § 1506 . 5 b. We turn now to defendant United States’ motion to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim within the jurisdiction of this court.”
Berdick v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 94 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “Said claims are returned to the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1506 (1976), together with a certified copy of the record made here.”
Appalachian Reg'l Hospitals, Inc. v. United States, 217 Ct. Cl. 1 (Ct. Cl. 1978). “This component of *13 plaintiffs claim thus comes within our jurisdiction under the Whitecliff rationale.”
Goewey v. United States, 222 Ct. Cl. 104 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “28 U.S.C. § 1506 (1976). Transfer of a claim that is barred by the statute of limitations would not serve those interests.”
First Hartford Corp. Pension Plan & Trust v. United States, 194 F.3d 1279 (Fed. Cir. 1999). “It also held that “[w]e are unable to transfer this case [to the district court] directly under 28 U.S.C. § 1506 , ... as plaintiffs’ claim for damages ‘in excess of $10,000’ places the present petition beyond any district court’s jurisdiction.”
Hoopa Valley Tribe v. United States, 219 Ct. Cl. 492 (Ct. Cl. 1979). “OPINION OF TRIAL JUDGE SCHWARTZ, Trial Judge: The plaintiff, Hoopa Valley Tribe, has moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1506 (1976) to retransfer this case to the District Court for the Northern District of California, as a case within the exclusive jurisdiction of that court.”
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.