Hobbs v. United States
Cases that cite this one
12 later published cases cite this decision.
- Passamaquoddy Tribe v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2008)
- Unr Industries, Inc., Unarco Industries, Inc., and Eagle Picher Industries, Inc. v. The United States, Keene Corporation v. The United States (Fed. Cir. 1992)
- Otoe-Missouria Tribe of Indians v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2012)
- Keene Corp. v. United States (Court of Claims 1989)
- United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2012)
- Coeur D'Alene Tribe v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2011)
- United Keetoowah Band of Cherokee Indians v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2009)
- Unr Industries, Inc., Unarco Industries, Inc. And Eagle-Picher Industries, Inc. v. The United States, Keene Corporation v. United States (Fed. Cir. 1990)
- Pellegrini v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2012)
- Kaw Nation of Oklahoma v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2012)
- Spodek v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 1999)
- Keene Corp. v. United States (Court of Claims 1987)
This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.
Opinion of the Court
This is a suit against the United States for alleged “taking and use” of plaintiff’s two valve inven
The following facts appear from the record and may be taken as true for the purposes of this motion. Plaintiff invented two valve constructions for which he received the two patents mentioned above, issued in 1950 and 1952, respectively. He alleges that defendant used these inventions in the production of fissionable material. On October 9, 1956, plaintiff filed a claim with the Atomic Energy Commission for just compensation for the “taking and use” of plaintiff’s inventions, and for the restriction of plaintiff’s patent rights. The Patent Compensation Board of the Atomic Energy Commission denied plaintiff’s claim by an order dated February 18, 1963. Thereafter, plaintiff filed its petition in this court on August 29, 1963. As a precautionary measure, in case section 189 of the Atomic Energy Act of 1954 (68 Stat. 919) should control as to procedure, plaintiff filed a petition to review the AEC order in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals on August 30, 1963; which petition is still pending in that court.
Defendant has shown, and plaintiff does not deny, that the petition pending in the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals pertains to the same claim as the petition in this court. The Government, therefore, moves to dismiss the petition for lack of jurisdiction on the basis, inter alia, of the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1500.
Section 1500 of Title 28, United States Code, provides in pertinent part:
The Court of Claims shall not have jurisdiction of any claim for or in respect to which the plaintiff or his assignee has pending in any other court any suit or process against the United States * * *.
According to the undisputed facts disclosed by the pleadings, the terms of this statute clearly deprive this court of jurisdic
The defendant’s motion is granted, and plaintiff’s petition is dismissed without prejudice.
Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.