Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

Henderson Vs. United States

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • May 20, 1996

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

62 entries 8 linked 54 unlinked
Show
  1. Library of Congress Vs. Shaw US Supreme Court · Jul 01, 1986
  2. United States Vs. Sherwood US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1941
  3. Honda Vs. Clark US Supreme Court · Apr 10, 1967
    Relied / Followed
  4. United States Vs. Kubrick US Supreme Court · Nov 28, 1979
  5. Hanna Vs. Plumer US Supreme Court · Apr 26, 1965
  6. Lehman Vs. Nakshian US Supreme Court · Jun 26, 1981
  7. Fdic Vs. Meyer US Supreme Court · Oct 04, 1993
  8. United States Vs. Dalm US Supreme Court · Mar 20, 1990
  9. Henderson v. United
    Search
  10. States - 517 U.S. 654 (1996) October Term, 1995 Syllabus Henderson V. United
    Search
  11. a suit on a right created by federal law, filing a complaint suffices to satisfy the statute of limitations. See West v. Conrail
    Search
  12. before the statute of limitations has run, if state law so requires for a similar state-court suit. See Walker v. Armco
    Search
  13. Steel Corp., 446 U. S. 740 , 752-753 (1980) (reaffirming Ragan v. Merchants
    Search
  14. Transfer & Warehouse Co., 337 U. S. 530 (1949)). But cf. Hanna v. Plumer
    Search
  15. the Government's motion, but reconsidered the matter based on an intervening Fifth Circuit decision, United States v. Holmberg
    Search
  16. Id., at 576. 8 Compare, e. g., Libby v. United
    Search
  17. Kenyon v. United
    Search
  18. irreducible allowance. Prior to 1983, Rule 4 contained no time limit for service. Until the changes installed that year, v. United
    Search
  19. F.2d 683 , 685-686 (CA2), cert. dism'd, 371 U. S. 907 (1962), with Jones & Laughlin Steel, Inc. v. Mon
    Search
  20. immunity waiver by providing for costs and interest on money judgments against the United States.ll See United States v. Bodcaw
    Search
  21. Libby v. United
    Search
  22. of various procedural lapses in the same manner as 'if such vessel were privately owned or operated.''' Battaglia v. United
    Search
  23. b). See Jones & Laughlin Steel, Inc. v. Mon
    Search
  24. provision of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15(c). See Ashland v. Ling-Temco-
    Search
  25. See United States v. Sherwood
    Search
  26. claims against United States, does not authorize joinder of claims between private parties). 22 See United States v. Nordic
    Search
  27. the Government's sovereign immunity from bankruptcy trustee's monetary relief claims). 23 See Library of Congress v. Shaw
    Search
  28. of immunity from suit for damages does not waive immunity with respect to interest). 24 See, e. g., United States v. Williams
    Search
  29. Block v. North
    Search
  30. to the waiver, with the result that failure to comply will deprive a court of u. S. 273, 287 (1983). But cf. Honda v. Clark
    Search
  31. to preserve petitioners' cause of action where similar suit was filed within 60-day limitation). 25 See Mullane v. Central
    Search
  32. Dakota ex rel. Board of Univ. and School Lands, 461 U. S. 273 , 287 (1983). See also Lehman v. Nakshian
    Search
  33. of a waiver of sovereign immunity, ambiguity must always be resolved in favor of the Government. See United States v. Williams
    Search
  34. United States v. Nordic
    Search
  35. Inc., 503 U. S. 30 , 34 (1992) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). See also Library of Congress v. Shaw
    Search
  36. cannot be superseded by a Federal Rule of Civil Procedure. Sovereign immunity is by nature jurisdictional, FDIC v. Meyer
    Search
  37. Sherwood, supra, at 589.1 1 For instance, in United States v. Sherwood
    Search
  38. Soriano v. United
    Search
  39. Id., at 591. 2 See United States v. Holmberg
    Search
  40. Amella v. United
    Search
  41. Battaglia v. United
    Search
  42. cert. dism'd, 371 U. S. 907 (1962). Only one Circuit has gone the other way. See Jones & Laughlin Steel, Inc. v. Mon
    Search
  43. naturally. But that is not the case. As the Government concedes, the Rules Enabling 3 Although we held in Irwin v. Department
    Search
  44. stricter, treatment of statutes of limitations in the sovereign immunity context, but our decision in United States v. Williams
    Search
  45. U. S., at 534, n. 7, and cited for this proposition United States v. Dalm
    Search
  46. F.2d 711 , 713 (CA9 1984) (citing Black's Law Dictionary 588 (5th ed. 1979)). See also Dick erman v. Northern
    Search
  47. Syllabus Henderson V. United
    Search
  48. See West v. Conrail
    Search
  49. See Walker v. Armco
    Search
  50. Ragan v. Merchants
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial