Yellowstone Pine Co.

Court of Claims

Yellowstone Pine Co.

205 Ct. Cl. 867, 1974 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 69, 1974 WL 5665

CourtUnited States Court of Claims

DecidedNovember 15, 1974

DocketNo. 144-74

StatusPublished

This text of 205 Ct. Cl. 867 (Yellowstone Pine Co.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering United States Court of Claims primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Yellowstone Pine Co., 205 Ct. Cl. 867, 1974 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 69, 1974 WL 5665 (cc 1974).

Pincite

Opinion

Court of Claims jurisdiction; suit against officers of United States; license-authorizing statutes. — Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the United States and various named officers of the United States for the alleged taking of its property without just compensation. The claim arises out of a timber sale contract and requests for special use permits from the Forest Service for construction of a logging road to provide access to the timber, the Forest Service hav[868]*868ing failed to act upon tbe requests. On November 15, 1974 the court issued the following order:

Before Skelton, Judge, Presiding, Nichols and Kunzig, Judges.

“This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion, filed July 1, 1974, to dismiss the petition. Upon consideration thereof, together with the opposition thereto, without oral argument, it is concluded that the portion of plaintiff’s claim which names as co-defendants officers of the United States, individually and in their official capacities, is beyond the jurisdiction of this court (see United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941)) and that the remainder of plaintiff’s case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (see Mosca v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 283, 417 F. 2d 1382 (1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 911 (1970); Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 372 F. 2d 1002 (1967)); and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“it is thereeore ordered that defendant’s said motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

On April 28, 1975 plaintiff’s petition for certiorari was denied, 421 U.S. 948.

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

Court of Claims jurisdiction; suit against officers of United States; license-authorizing statutes. — Plaintiff seeks to recover damages from the United States and various named officers of the United States for the alleged taking of its property without just compensation. The claim arises out of a timber sale contract and requests for special use permits from the Forest Service for construction of a logging road to provide access to the timber, the Forest Service hav[868]*868ing failed to act upon tbe requests. On November 15, 1974 the court issued the following order:

Before Skelton, Judge, Presiding, Nichols and Kunzig, Judges.

“This case comes before the court on defendant’s motion, filed July 1, 1974, to dismiss the petition. Upon consideration thereof, together with the opposition thereto, without oral argument, it is concluded that the portion of plaintiff’s claim which names as co-defendants officers of the United States, individually and in their official capacities, is beyond the jurisdiction of this court (see United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584 (1941)) and that the remainder of plaintiff’s case fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted (see Mosca v. United States, 189 Ct. Cl. 283, 417 F. 2d 1382 (1969), cert. denied, 399 U.S. 911 (1970); Eastport Steamship Corp. v. United States, 178 Ct. Cl. 599, 372 F. 2d 1002 (1967)); and the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution.

“it is thereeore ordered that defendant’s said motion to dismiss plaintiff’s petition is granted and the petition is dismissed.”

On April 28, 1975 plaintiff’s petition for certiorari was denied, 421 U.S. 948.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

205 Ct. Cl. 867, 1974 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 69, 1974 WL 5665, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/yellowstone-pine-co-cc-1974.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack