Truckee-carson Irrigation District, Plaintiff-appellant, v. the United States, Defendant-appellee, 864 F.2d 149 (Fed. Cir. 1988)
Annotate this CaseBefore ARCHER, Circuit Judge, COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge, and MAYER, Circuit Judge.
COWEN, Senior Circuit Judge.
DECISION
The decision of the United States Claims Court (Gibson, Judge) 14 Cl.Ct. 361 (1988), which dismissed appellant's suit for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, is affirmed on the basis of Judge Gibson's comprehensive and well-reasoned opinion.
ARCHER, Circuit Judge, concurring in the result.
I write separately because the Claims Court erred, albeit harmlessly, in not granting the government's motion for judgment on the pleadings, Rule 12(c) of the Rules of the United States Claims Court. Since the Truckee-Carson Irrigation District (TCID) admits in its complaint that it believed the Secretary to be without the authority necessary to bind the government, no meeting of the minds, essential to an implied-in-fact contract, could be proved as a matter of law. Accordingly, the government's motion should have been decided as styled, with prejudice. Those matters argued by the TCID as not being within the pleadings need not be considered in granting the government's motion.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
