James A. Murray, Justin L. Murray, and Joan M. Murray v. The United States

Federal Circuit

James A. Murray, Justin L. Murray, and Joan M. Murray v. The United States

864 F.2d 148, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14949, 1988 WL 118026

Procedural entryThis page is a short order in James A. Murray, Justin L. Murray, and Joan M. Murray v. The United States. Read the opinion of the Court — 817 F.2d 1580 →

Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit·Decided November 9, 1988·No. 88-1530·Unpublished

Opinion

864 F.2d 148

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
James A. MURRAY, Justin L. MURRAY, and Joan M. Murray,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-1530.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 9, 1988.

Before RICH, EDWARD S. SMITH, and PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION

The decision of the United States Claims Court, in Murray v. United States, No. 541-85T (Cl.Ct. filed June 2, 1988), denying appellants' (the Murrays) motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of the United States (Government), is affirmed.

OPINION

The Government contends that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over this proceeding because the Murrays failed to file their complaint in that court within the 6-year statutory period set forth in 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2401(a), 2501 (1982). We disagree. The Murrays did file their complaint in the Claims Court "within six years after the right of action first accrue[d]." The Government, pursuant to its October 4, 1979, letter to the Murrays, first took the position that the Murrays' lien was not valid and denied their request for redemption. It was less than 6 years later, on September 17, 1985, that the Murrays filed their complaint in the Claims Court.

Turning to the merits, we have carefully reviewed the record and the arguments presented on appeal. The Murrays have given us no grounds to disturb the Claims Court's judgment. Accordingly, on the basis of its opinion, the Claims Court's judgment is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

864 F.2d 148

Unpublished Disposition
NOTICE: Federal Circuit Local Rule 47.8(b) states that opinions and orders which are designated as not citable as precedent shall not be employed or cited as precedent. This does not preclude assertion of issues of claim preclusion, issue preclusion, judicial estoppel, law of the case or the like based on a decision of the Court rendered in a nonprecedential opinion or order.
James A. MURRAY, Justin L. MURRAY, and Joan M. Murray,
Plaintiffs-Appellants,
v.
The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 88-1530.

United States Court of Appeals, Federal Circuit.

Nov. 9, 1988.

Before RICH, EDWARD S. SMITH, and PAULINE NEWMAN, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM.

DECISION

The decision of the United States Claims Court, in Murray v. United States, No. 541-85T (Cl.Ct. filed June 2, 1988), denying appellants' (the Murrays) motion for summary judgment and granting summary judgment in favor of the United States (Government), is affirmed.

OPINION

The Government contends that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over this proceeding because the Murrays failed to file their complaint in that court within the 6-year statutory period set forth in 28 U.S.C. Secs. 2401(a), 2501 (1982). We disagree. The Murrays did file their complaint in the Claims Court "within six years after the right of action first accrue[d]." The Government, pursuant to its October 4, 1979, letter to the Murrays, first took the position that the Murrays' lien was not valid and denied their request for redemption. It was less than 6 years later, on September 17, 1985, that the Murrays filed their complaint in the Claims Court.

Turning to the merits, we have carefully reviewed the record and the arguments presented on appeal. The Murrays have given us no grounds to disturb the Claims Court's judgment. Accordingly, on the basis of its opinion, the Claims Court's judgment is affirmed.

James A. Murray, Justin L. Murray, and Joan M. Murray v. The United States, 864 F.2d 148, 1988 U.S. App. LEXIS 14949, 1988 WL 118026 (Fed. Cir. 1988).

Pincite

864 F.2d 148 (James A. Murray, Justin L. Murray, and Joan M. Murray v. The United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.