Supreme Court· 6/27/1983

United States v. Mitchell

Citations

463 U.S. 206
103 S. Ct. 2961
77 L. Ed. 2d 580
1983 U.S. LEXIS 90
51 U.S.L.W. 4999

How courts have described this case

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

explaining that, in order for a claim to be “cognizable under the Tucker Act,” it “must be one for money damages against the United States”
holding that the General Allotment Act created a “bare trust”
recognizing that the sovereign’s consent is “a prerequisite for jurisdiction”
explaining that jurisdiction under the Tucker Act requires \some other source\ of substantive that \can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal Government for the damages sustained\
noting that this section of the Tucker Act provides a waiver of sovereign immunity
finding that the Tucker Act serves to waive the United States’ immunity for claims that ‘“can fairly be interpreted as mandating compensation by the [f]ederal [government for the damage sustained.’”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Marshall, Powell, Rehnquist, O'Connor

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

2,021 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

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

Other cases named United States v. Mitchell

334 other CourtListener records share this case name; the 50 most cited are listed.

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.