Court Opinion

ID: 9444521
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-03 21:03:47.547282+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:29:54.338736
License: Public Domain

On Petition of Appellee for Rehearing.
PER CURIAM.
In our former opinion it was stated: “However, the appellee concedes that these [cases cited in footnote 4] are not controlling precedents, since the opinions do not discuss whether the Tucker Act remedy was repealed by the Suits in Admiralty Act.” As the petition for rehearing points out, we inadvertently ovei'stated the extent of the appellee’s concession. This was restricted to Eastern Transportation Co. v. United States, 2 Cir., 159 F.2d 349. The other three eases cited in the footnote were relied upon by the appellee as controlling precedents. In fairness to the appellee, the above quoted sentence is stricken from our opinion, and there is substituted therefor the following: “However, the court does not regard these cases as controlling precedents, since the opinions do not discuss whether the Tucker Act remedy was repealed by the Suits in Admiralty Act: We believe that no concurrent Tucker Act jurisdiction exists in cases where a libel might be filed under the Suits in Admiralty Act. At least this is true when it appears, as it does in-the case at bar, that the two year limitation of the latter Act has expired before the Tucker Act suit was filed.” The petition for rehearing is denied.