Court of Claims, 1983

Bounds v. United States

Court of Claims · Decided January 7, 1983 · Kozinski

1 Cl. Ct. 215; 1983 U.S. Claims LEXIS 1893

Counsel

James E. Deno, Everett, Wash., for plaintiffs., Lynn Bush Ferguson, Washington, D.C., with whom was Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Paul McGrath, Washington, D.C., for plaintiff; Jeffrey Kahn, Dept, of Agriculture, Washington, D.C., of counsel.

Cases that cite this one

16 later published cases cite this decision.

Haberman v. United States (Court of Claims 1989)
Empire Kosher Poultry, Inc. v. Hallowell, Penrose Van Buskirk, Jr., Max A. Block, John Apple, John Sharman, Euclid C (3d Cir. 1987)
Arroyo v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2021)
Dumonde v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2009)
Telemaque v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2008)
Stephenson v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2003)
Obadele v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 2002)
New York Power Authority v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 1999)
Medina Construction, Ltd. v. United States (United States Court of Federal Claims 1999)
Al Hamburg v. United States (Fed. Cir. 1996)
Griffin v. United States (Court of Claims 1989)
Evans v. United States (Court of Claims 1988)
Meincke v. United States (Court of Claims 1988)
Wright v. United States (Court of Claims 1988)
Heagy v. United States (Court of Claims 1987)
Bounds (Enver H.) v. u.s.bounds v. United States (Fed. Cir. 1983)

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

ORDER

KOZINSKI, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs are beekeepers who suffered losses because poisonous chemicals were used near their beehives. They allege that they submitted indemnity claims for income *216losses in 1979 and 1980 under the Beekeeper Indemnity Payment Program, 7 U.S.C. § 284 note (1976). These claims were accepted for payment by the Department of Agriculture but could not be paid due to lack of funding for the program. They brought suit alleging jurisdiction under the provisions of the Beekeepers Indemnity Payment Program and the fifth amendment.

Oral argument was held on January 6,1983, on defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Counsel for the parties participated by telephone conference call. The court determined that this case is squarely controlled by Hoffland v. United States, No. 672-81C (Ct.Cl. Aug. 27, 1982) which held that we lack jurisdiction over claims by beekeepers under the Beekeeper Indemnity Payment Program because the program “was implicitly contingent on the government’s appropriation of funds for its continuance.” Id. slip op. at 3.

Plaintiffs’ fifth amendment claim is equally without merit. Insofar as they claim a denial of equal protection, our cases squarely hold that the equal protection clause of the fifth amendment does not form a basis for jurisdiction. Muehlen v. United States, 209 Ct.Cl. 690 (1976). Insofar as plaintiffs are arguing a taking without just compensation, that argument is entirely dependent upon the existence of some right or property of which they have been deprived. However, the Court of Claims in Hoffland established that no such right existed and therefore there could be no compensable taking under the fifth amendment. Cf. Royce v. United States, 1 Cl.Ct. 225, at 226 (Cl.Ct. 1982) (KOZINSKI, C.J.).

The motion for summary judgment is granted. The clerk is directed to dismiss the petition with costs to the prevailing party.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.