Doko Farms v. United States

7 Citing cases

  1. Schultz v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.

    2014-3120 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2014)

    That is the law of this case, which governs these proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1988) ("[T]he doctrine [of the law of the case] posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case."); Texas Am. Oil Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 44 F.3d 1557, 1561-62 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (applying law of the case to jurisdictional ruling); Doko Farms v. United States, 861 F.2d 255, 25657 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (same). After careful review of the papers when read in light of the applicable standard, we conclude that transfer of this case is appropriate.

  2. McGuire v. United States

    707 F.3d 1351 (Fed. Cir. 2013)   Cited 7 times
    Holding the futility exception did not apply where agency's correspondence made clear that applicant "needed to do more to exhaust his [administrative] remedies"

    The doctrine applies to decisions of coordinate courts, id. at 816, 108 S.Ct. 2166, and, despite the duty of a court to satisfy itself of its jurisdiction, the doctrine applies even to jurisdictional decisions. See, e.g., Texas Am. Oil Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 44 F.3d 1557, 1561–62 (Fed.Cir.1995) (applying a “plausibility” framework to find that the Fifth Circuit's jurisdictional ruling was the law of the case); Doko Farms v. United States, 861 F.2d 255, 256–57 (Fed.Cir.1988) (declining to examine jurisdiction again when the question was close and the Fifth Circuit's decision was “plausible”). At least with respect to coordinate or subordinate courts, however, the doctrine of the law of the case does not limit a court's power.

  3. Murray v. Scott

    253 F.3d 1308 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 119 times
    Holding that judge should have recused himself based on fact that, while serving as government attorney, he had appeared as counsel of record in action in which corporation was party, possibly giving him knowledge of facts disputed in instant action

    But we note that "[i]f the transferee court can find the transfer decision plausible, its jurisdictional inquiry is at an end." Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 2179, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988) (concluding that adherence to law of the case doctrine obviates the need to review "every marginal jurisdictional dispute."); see also Doko Farms v. United States, 861 F.2d 255, 256-57 (Fed. Cir. 1988) ("[Appellee]'s argument persuades us that the [transfer] question is close. Under such circumstances, to engage in a full review would be contrary to law-of-the-case principles.").

  4. DOKO FARMS v. U.S.

    956 F.2d 1136 (Fed. Cir. 1992)   Cited 13 times
    Noting that a holding that a claim is barred by a statute of limitations "determine nothing with respect to the merits of the . . . claim"

    Litigation followed over whether the Claims Court or the district court had jurisdiction over the case. The Claims Court transferred the case back to the district court, which again held for Doko. On the government's appeal, this court held that under Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 108 S.Ct. 2166, 100 L.Ed.2d 811 (1988), the earlier decision of the Fifth Circuit that the Claims Court had exclusive jurisdiction was the law of the case, vacated the judgment of the district court and remanded the case to that court to transfer it to the Claims Court. Doko Farms v. United States, 861 F.2d 255, 257 (Fed. Cir. 1988). The parties then filed in the Claims Court a new complaint and a new counterclaim, seeking the same relief as in their previous filings.

  5. Simanonok v. Simanonok

    918 F.2d 947 (Fed. Cir. 1990)   Cited 11 times
    Holding that no Bivens relief is available for constitutional claims against federal officials in their official capacities

    Jurisdiction is properly with the Federal Circuit. In Doko Farms v. United States, 861 F.2d 255, 256 (Fed. Cir. 1988), we described Christianson as having "held that the decision of a coordinate court on a jurisdictional issue must be followed as the law of the case." See also Smith v. Orr, 855 F.2d 1544, 1548 (Fed. Cir. 1988), where we stated that in Christianson "the Supreme Court held that a transferee court must apply law-of-the-case principles to a transfer decision of a coordinate court.

  6. Schultz v. Merit Sys. Prot. Bd.

    Civil Action No. 13-1363 (W.D. Pa. Dec. 11, 2014)   Cited 1 times

    That is the law of this case, which governs these proceedings absent extraordinary circumstances. See Christianson v. Colt Indus. Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800, 815-16 (1988) ("[T]he doctrine [of the law of the case] posits that when a court decides upon a rule of law, that decision should continue to govern the same issues in subsequent stages in the same case."); Texas Am. Oil Corp. v. U.S. Dep't of Energy, 44 F.3d 1557, 1561-62 (Fed. Cir. 1995) (applying law of the case to jurisdictional ruling); Doko Farms v. United States, 861 F.2d 255, 256-57 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (same).Schultz v. MSPB, Case No. 2014-3120, Docket No. 19 at 2-3 (Fed. Cir. Aug. 26, 2014); (Civil Action No. 13-1363 Docket No. 1 at 2-3).

  7. McGuire v. U.S.

    No. 09-380L (Fed. Cl. Feb. 18, 2011)   Cited 1 times
    Stating that “the regulatory regime certainly will shape whether [a claimant's] expectation was reasonable” in assessing a takings claim

    Org. v.District of Columbia, 496 F.3d 1362, 1369 n. 1 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (" Christianson directs appellate courts to apply the law of the case doctrine and defer to sister Circuits' jurisdictional determinations upon a transfer.") (emphasis added). A similar procedural path appears in Doko Farms v.United States, 861 F.2d 255 (Fed. Cir. 1988), and suggests that the deference appropriate to a "coordinate court" should apply here. In that case, a suit was brought in federal district court and appealed to the Fifth Circuit, which held that the district court lacked jurisdiction, and transferred the case to the United States Claims Court.