PEREZ NARANJO
v.
CALIFORNIA

U.S. | 1992-10-05
No. 91-1883
506 U.S. 820 Supreme Court of the United States (1992) Positive Treatment
Cited by 1 case
Opinion

Full opinion text not available for this case.

Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus

Citator

Cited By

  • E. Enters. v. Apfel, 524 U.S. 498 (U.S. 1998)
    …ts’ jurisdiction, until compensation has been sought and refused in the Court of Federal Claims, see Bay View, Inc. v. Ahtna, Inc., 105 F. 3d 1281, [*521] 1286 (CA9 1997); Rose Acre Farms, Inc. v. Madigan, 956 F. 2d 670, 673-674 (CA7), cert. denied, 506 U. S. 820 (1992). On the one hand, this Court’s precedent can be read to support the latter conclusion that regardless of the nature of relief sought, the availability of a Tucker Act remedy renders premature any takings claim in federal district court. See…

Full citator, related cases, and AI research tools

Open in FLexlaw