Lynch v. United States

6 Citing briefs

  1. Brigade Leveraged Capital Structures Fund Ltd. et al v. The Government Development Bank For Puerto Rico

    Cross MOTION for Summary Judgment and Memorandum of Law in Opposition to Defendants Motion to Dismiss

    Filed August 5, 2016

    In Franklin I, this Court followed well-established law in holding that bondholders’ contract rights, including the right to specified remedies, are property protected by the Takings Clause. See 85 F. Supp. 3d at 611-12 (citing United States Trust Co., 431 U.S. at 19 n.16 and Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 579 (1934)). None of the cases on which Defendants rely are to the contrary, including because none involved contract rights enforceable against an instrumentality of the government that took those rights.

  2. Adams et al v. Committee on Judicial Conduct & Disability et al

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed June 19, 2015

    The bar of sovereign immunity “applies alike to causes of action arising under acts of Congress and to those arising from some violation of rights conferred upon the citizen by the Constitution.” Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 582 (1934) (citations omitted). Because Plaintiffs’ action is against a federal entity and a federal official, it may be maintained only: (1) to the extent that it falls within an express waiver of the United States’s sovereign immunity; and (2) in the manner authorized by the statute that provides the waiver.

  3. Awuah v. Coverall North America, Inc.,

    MEMORANDUM in Support re MOTION for Reconsideration re Order on Motion for Reconsideration

    Filed April 25, 2013

    Taking away or materially lessening the right to enforce contracts impairs private property in a manner that makes the impairment subject to the Takings Clause. Lynch, 292 U.S. at 580. Plaintiffs’ releases are included in agreements containing Coverall’s assents to transfers of franchise assets, or other termination agreements.

  4. Veterans for Common Sense et al v. Peake et al

    MOTION to Dismiss

    Filed September 25, 2007

    Plaintiffs allege that the VJRA violates their constitutional rights, but the Constitution does not waive sovereign immunity. See Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 582 (1934). Likewise, plaintiffs assert jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 (Compl.

  5. Kottman v. United States of America et al

    MOTION to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction , MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM

    Filed April 18, 2017

    Heller v. United States, 776 F.2d 92, 98 (3d Cir. 1985). See also Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 581, 54 S.Ct. 840, 844 (1934) (“[C]onsent to sue the United States is a privilege accorded, not the grant of a property right protected by the Fifth Amendment.”); Schneider v. United States, 27 F.3d 1327, 1332 (8th Cir. 1994) (“Congress’s power to maintain or to waive sovereign immunity for suits against the government is absolute and is inherent in the government's status as a sovereign.”)

  6. Bleier v. Bundesrepublik Deutscheland et al

    MOTION

    Filed July 30, 2012

    As the Country of offering of the bonds is the United States, then Germany comes under the scope of the Supreme Court rulings, which state that repudiation of a contractual obligation by a sovereign to be illegal, and valid contracts of the government with it are property, and rights of private individuals arising out of them are protected by the 5th Amendment. See Lynch v. United States, 292 U.S. 571, 579, 580 (1934). Germany cannot be Unjustly Enriched, and impair the contractual obligations, and take property and monies, and wrongfully expropriate due principal and interest from private individuals, to transfer and give it to Germany by way of a bogus or spurious validation scheme and/or be a Judge in her own cause.