United States v. King, No. 672
| Court | United States Supreme Court |
| Writing for the Court | BLACK |
| Citation | 89 S.Ct. 1501,23 L.Ed.2d 52,395 U.S. 1 |
| Parties | UNITED STATES, Petitioner, v. John P. KING |
| Docket Number | No. 672 |
| Decision Date | 19 May 1969 |
v.
John P. KING.
William D. Ruckelshaus, Washington, D.C., for petitioner.
Neil B. Kabatchnick, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Mr. Justice BLACK delivered the opinion of the Court.
Colonel John P. King, respondent, was retired from the Army for longevity (length of service) over his objection that he should have been retired for physical disability. Had his retirement been based on disability, Colonel King
Page 2
would have been entitled to an exemption from income taxation allowed by § 104(a)(4) of the Internal Revenue Code of 1954, 26 U.S.C. § 104(a)(4). He brought this action in the Court of Claims alleging that the Secretary of the Army's action in rejecting his disability retirement was arbitrary, capricious, not supported by evidence, and therefore unlawful, and asked for a judgment against the United States for an amount of excess taxes he had been compelled to pay because he had been retired for longevity instead of disability. The Court of Claims agreed with the United States that the claim as filed was basically one for a refund of taxes and was therefore barred by King's failure to allege that he had filed a timely claim for refund as required by 26 U.S.C. § 7422(a). In this situation, the court suggested to counsel that it might have jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act and requested that briefs and arguments on this point be submitted to the court. This was done. The Court of Claims, in an illuminating and interesting opinion by Judge Davis, reached the conclusion that the court could exercise jurisdiction under the Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2201. In so holding, the court thereby rejected the Government's contentions that the Declaratory Judgment Act does not apply to the Court of Claims and that the court's jurisdiction is limited to actions asking for money judgments. By thisr uling the court expressly declined to follow a long line of its own decisions beginning with Twin Cities Properties, Inc. v. United States, 81 Ct.Cl. 655 (1935). As the opinion of Judge Davis showed, the question of whether the Court of Claims has jurisdiction to issue declaratory judgments is both substantial and important. We granted certiorari to decide that question.
The Court of Claims was established by Congress in 1855. Throughout its entire history up until the time that this case was filed, its jurisdiction has been limited
Page 3
to money claims against the United States Government. In 1868 this Court held that 'the only judgments which the Court of Claims (is) authorized to render against the government * *...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Bowen v. Massachusetts Massachusetts v. Bowen, Nos. 87-712
...Act jurisdiction empowers courts "to award damages but not to grant injunctive or declaratory relief"); United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 3, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969) (relief the Claims Court can give is "limited to actual, presently due money damages from th......
-
Chavez v. United States, CIV 21-0872-JB-SCY
...be implied and must be unequivocally expressed.'” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980)(quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4, 89 (1969)). See United States v. Nordic Vill., Inc., 503 U.S. at 33-34; United States v. Murdock Mach. & Eng'g Co. of Utah, 81 F.3d 922, 93......
-
Martinez v. U.S., No. 99-5163.
...might give rise to liability for damages by the United States. The Government relies for support for its position on United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969), which reversed a 1968 decision by the Court of The King case is hardly support for the Government's po......
-
Pollinger v. U.S., Civil Action No. 06-1885 (CKK).
..."a waiver of sovereign immunity `cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.'" Id. (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969)). Here, Plaintiff cites both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 2410 as jurisdictional grounds for his quiet title cla......
-
Bowen v. Massachusetts Massachusetts v. Bowen, Nos. 87-712
...) (Tucker Act jurisdiction empowers courts "to award damages but not to grant injunctive or declaratory relief"); United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 3, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 1502, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969) (relief the Claims Court can give is "limited to actual, presently due money damages from the Uni......
-
Chavez v. United States, CIV 21-0872-JB-SCY
...be implied and must be unequivocally expressed.'” United States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980)(quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4, 89 (1969)). See United States v. Nordic Vill., Inc., 503 U.S. at 33-34; United States v. Murdock Mach. & Eng'g Co. of Utah, 81 F.3d 922, 930 (1......
-
Martinez v. U.S., No. 99-5163.
...might give rise to liability for damages by the United States. The Government relies for support for its position on United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969), which reversed a 1968 decision by the Court of The King case is hardly support for the Government's po......
-
Pollinger v. U.S., Civil Action No. 06-1885 (CKK).
...Moreover, "a waiver of sovereign immunity `cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.'" Id. (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969)). Here, Plaintiff cites both 28 U.S.C. §§ 1340 and 2410 as jurisdictional grounds for his quiet title cla......
-
Sovereign Immunity and State Regulation of Federal Facilities and Tribes
...Nordic Village, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 34 (1992)); Fostvedt , 978 F.2d at 1203, cert. denied , 507 U.S. at 988 (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969)). 19. Schillinger, 155 U.S. at 166. 20. Orff v. United States, 545 U.S. 596, 601-02 (2005); Department of Energy , 503 U.S. at 612 (......
-
CONGRESSIONAL RULES OF INTERPRETATION.
...(stating that "a waiver of sovereign immunity... 'cannot be implied but must be unequivocally expressed.'" (quoting United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969))); United States v. Nordic VilL, Inc., 503 U.S. 30, 39 (1992) (holding that a statute did not waive sovereign immunity because it l......
-
Application of the ESA to Indian Tribes and Their Lands
...Clara Pueblo v. Martinez, 436 U.S. 49, 58 (1978) (quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 399 (1976), and United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 4 (1969)). it.” 100 As stated by the Eleventh Circuit, “whether an Indian tribe is subject to a statute and whether the tribe may be sued for v......