Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
The Tucker Act (March 3, 1887, ch. 359, 24 Stat. 505, 28 U.S.C. § 1491) is a federal statute of the United States by which the United States government has waived its sovereign immunity with respect to certain lawsuits.
Should the contractor be dissatisfied with the administrative decision and bring a Tucker Act suit for breach of contract in the Court of Claims or the District Court, 28 U. S. C. § 1346 (a)(2) (1964 ed.), the finality accorded administrative fact finding by the disputes clause is limited by the provisions of the Wunderlich Act of 1954 which ...
Tucker Act, Indian Tucker Act Mitchell , 463 U.S. 206 (1983), was a case in which the Supreme Court of the United States held that the United States is accountable in money damages for alleged breaches of trust in connection with its management of forest resources on allotted lands of the Quinault Reservation.
In 1887, Congress passed the Tucker Act, which significantly expanded the court's jurisdiction to include all claims against the government except tort, equity, and admiralty claims. The court thus today has nationwide jurisdiction over most suits for monetary claims against the government and sits, without a jury, to determine issues of law ...
“The raid on Mar-a-Lago was not an act of law enforcement, it was the opposite of that,” Tucker Carlson said on his Fox News show Monday night. “It was an attack on the rule of law.”
In 2021, Congress convened at 1 p.m. in a joint session and, because of both a prolonged recess due to the breach of the Capitol and multiple state objections, did not complete its work certifying ...
The United States has waived sovereign immunity to a limited extent, mainly through the Federal Tort Claims Act, which waives the immunity if a tortious act of a federal employee causes damage, and the Tucker Act, which waives the immunity over claims arising out of contracts to which the federal government is a party. The Federal Tort Claims ...
It seeks $1,000 (£812) per user for alleged violations of the US federal Stored Communications Act as well as an unspecified amount for breach of contract and California's unfair competition law.