Marcus v. United States
Fed. Cir.
Citation analytics
How this case sits in the citation network, derived from CiteLaw's graph of published opinions.
Citations by decade
Courts citing this case
Most recently cited by10
- 2026Becton v. United States Fed. Cl.
- 2026Everett v. United States
- 2026Nagy v. United States Fed. Cir.
- 2026Fitts v. United States Fed. Cl.
- 2026Johnson v. United States Fed. Cl.
- 2025Parra v. United States Fed. Cir.
- 2025Youmans v. United States Fed. Cl.
- 2025Kennedy v. United States Fed. Cl.
- 2025Parrott v. United States Fed. Cir.
- 2025Lopez v. United States Fed. Cir.
Cites 2 statutes
- Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments
- Claims against United States generally; actions involving Tennessee Valley Authority
Cites 2 cases
- Weinberger v. Salfi
- Alabama Hospital Ass'n v. United States
Counts reflect decisions in the CiteLaw corpus and may lag very recent opinions.
Opinion
Gilbert L. MARCUS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. The UNITED STATES, Defendant-Appellee.
Attorneys
- Gilbert L. Marcus, pro se.
- Steven J. Gillingham, Dept, of Justice, Washington, D.G., for defendant-appellee. With him on the brief were Stuart M. Ger-son, Asst. Atty. Gen., David M. Cohen, Director, and Thomas W. Petersen, Asst. Director, of counsel were Donald A. Gonya, Chief Counsel, Office of the Gen. Counsel, Social See. Admin., A. George Lowe, Deputy Chief Counsel and Robert Crowe.
Gilbert L. Marcus appeals from the Claims Court’s order, Marcus v. United States, No. 688-89 C (December 20, 1989) (Bruggink, J.), dismissing his claim for lack of jurisdiction. Although entitled a “Writ of Habeas Corpus Ad Respondum”, appellant seeks a reversal of the decision by the Commissioner of Social Security denying an award of social security disability benefits. Construing appellant’s pleading in a light most favorable to him, that is, as a claim for social security disability benefits, we hold that the Claims Court has no jurisdiction under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1) (1988), over claims to social security benefits, even considering appellant’s assertions that he is entitled to relief under the Constitution. See Weinberger v. Salfi, 422 U.S. 749, 756-767, 95 S.Ct. 2457, 2462-2467, 45 L.Ed.2d 522 (1975); (42 U.S.C. §§ 405(g) and (h) (1982) require that action for social security benefits must be brought in district court); cf. Alabama Hospital Ass’n v. United States, 228 Ct.Cl. 176, 656 F.2d 606 (1981). The judgment of the Claims Court is, therefore,
AFFIRMED.