Georgia-Pacific, LLC v. Dresser-Rand Co.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[T]he United States Court of Federal Claims does not have jurisdiction to review final judgments of the United States District Court[s] ... including [under] Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g)....”
• held takings claim barred under res judicata due to district court’s adverse ruling on Rule 41(g) motion
• “In the context of seeking return of property seized at arrest, however, Plaintiff first must file a motion for return of property pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 41(g) before invoking the jurisdiction of the United States Court of Federal Claims to assert a takings claim.”
• alternative holding in Rule 41(g) context follows Vereda

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).