holding that while the federal statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (a) would apply to a complaint filed with a court, it did not apply to a claim filed with the Civil Service Commission, an administrative agency
How later courts described this case
- holding that while the federal statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (a) would apply to a complaint filed with a court, it did not apply to a claim filed with the Civil Service Commission, an administrative agency
- stating a plaintiff’s action “accrue[s]” when “his right to resort to federal court [is] perfected,” which, in turn, means that a plaintiff “[can] . . . resort[] to federal court when he [is] first harmed”
- finding APA review to be distinct cause of action in nonmilitary context
- plaintiffs claim accrues when he is “first harmed”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ROBB, Circuit Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the part of the majority’s opinion that reverses the District Court’s grant of summary judgment. As the majority demonstrates forcefully, recovery by Oppenheim on the theory used by the District Court is barred by the statute of limitations, 28 U.S.C. § 2401 (a). The decision on this point is dispositive; accordingly I decline to express an opinion on the trial court’s construction of the 1940 Act, or on what alternate causes of action Oppenheim might have.