TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

White v. United States

BEN WHITE, ARCH ROBINSON, LEE WELLS, WILLIAM S. WELLS, ARCH J. McLAREN, ARTHUR D. BARKELEW, OSCAR CLAYTON, ROBERT L. CULPEPPER, WILLIAM B. EDWARDS, THE ESTATE OF CHARLES E. WELLS, THE ESTATE OF JOHN McLAREN, THE ESTATE OF THEODORE BOWEN v. United States

White v. United States, 98 Ct. Cl. 804 (Ct. Cl. 1943)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
United States Court of Claims · Federal Specialty Courts
Decided
February 1, 1943
Docket
No. 45710
Citations
98 Ct. Cl. 8041943 U.S. Ct. Cl. LEXIS 1131943 WL 4255

Opinion of the Court

Text extracted by OCR from a scanned original; check the original for exact wording.

The facts sufficiently appear from the opinion fer curiam, as follows

Plaintiffs sue for the value of lands in California of which, they allege, they were dispossessed about the year 1912, and for damages for false arrests, imprisonments, and malicious prosecutions brought about, they allege, by officials of the Department of the Interior and the Department of Justice. They allege that Congress in 1941 passed a bill giving this court jurisdiction to hear plaintiffs’ claims, and that the President, because he was misled by officials of the departments named above, vetoed the bill. They further allege that the veto was not within the ten days specified in the Constitution. The defendant demurs to the petition.

*807 As to the bill conferring special jurisdiction upon this court, it never became a law, as it was, contrary to plaintiffs’ contention, returned to Congress by the President within 10 days, Sundays excepted, after it was presented to him. We have no jurisdiction to give a remedy for the alleged misconduct of department officials in inducing the President to veto the bill. As to the other matters of which plaintiffs complain, the petition shows on its face that they are not within the ordinary jurisdiction of this court, and that, if they would otherwise be within our jurisdiction, the right to sue on them has long since been barred by the Statute of Limitations. (U. S. Code, Title 28, sections 250, 262.) The defendant’s demurer is sustained and plaintiffs’ petition is dismissed. It is so ordered.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

1943: 11947: 119432026peak 1943 · 1

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Edwards v. United States163 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1947)
  2. White v. United States99 Ct. Cl. 818 (1943)

Most recent

  1. Edwards v. United States163 F.2d 268 (9th Cir. 1947)
  2. White v. United States99 Ct. Cl. 818 (1943)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 0

No citations to other opinions in this database were found.

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list