Supreme Court· 6/23/2005

Orff v. United States

Citations

545 U.S. 596
125 S. Ct. 2606
162 L. Ed. 2d 544
2005 U.S. LEXIS 5013

How courts have described this case

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

holding that district court properly dismissed action for lack of jurisdiction where farmers UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA CIVIL MINUTES —- GENERAL ‘OQ’ Case No. 2:19-CV-09864-CAS(Ex
holding that district court properly dismissed action for lack of jurisdiction where farmers attempted to sue on a trust’s behalf because a beneficiary “is not the real party in interest and may not sue in the name of the trust’
noting that “a waiver of sovereign immunity must be strictly construed in favor of the sovereign”
noting that term “‘necessary party’ is a term of art whose meaning parallels Rule 19(a)’s requirements”
comparing the clear statements waiving sovereign immunity in the language of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), and the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1846(a)(2
comparing the clear statements waiving sovereign immunity in the language of the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), and the Little Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1846(a)(2), to the lack of any clear waiver statement in the language of the Reclamation Reform Act, 43 U.S.C. § 390uu

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Thomas

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

76 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

9 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases named Orff v. United States

5 other CourtListener records share this case name.

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.