Chris W. Beggerly James R. Beggerly Clark M. Beggerly Velma B. Garner Suzanne Reed David Reed v. United States

Nаtchez, MS, Plaintiffs-Appel- bodily injury uninsured motorist Kuehnle, stack two (2) coverages; not be lia- Allstate could lees. damages punitive ble for because the issue Currie, Griffin, Johnson, Grif- William C. presented impression was one of first Mis- MS, Jackson, fin, for Defen- Myers, Gaines & sissippi. Mississippi Id. at 1094-95. dant-Appellee. Court, however, Supreme declined to consid- er and Harrison did not consider the issue case, i.e., if than presented this more two by policy, ears are covered the insurance charge premium does the for uninsured mo- coverage permit stacking PARKER, torist as JONES, Before DeMOSS Harrison, each additional car. Because of Judges. Circuit paid plaintiffs an additional Allstate PER CURIAM: $10,000 plus that it interest but denies owes

any coverage additional for the third car BACKGROUND by policy. covered Burns’ Allstate moved summary judgment and the district court Burns September Ravella On granted by opinion and order such motion (“Burns”) involved a two vehicle acci- was 9, 1996, July filed under date of and entered County, Mississippi, and died dent in Adams 9, 1996, July final in favor of on that accident. The other vehi- as a result of plaintiffs timely appealed. Allstate. The by in the accident was driven cle involved Joseph R. and neither Ware nor the Ware OPINION driving by any was covered vehicle he briefs, carefully have reviewed the We liability insurance at the time of automobile excerpts portions and relevant Burns, however, accident. was insured record itself. For the reasons stated pursuant to the terms of an automobile insur- opinion district court in its and order filed policy issued Allstate. The Allstate ance 9,1996, July under date of the final coverage policy provided uninsured motorist 9,1996, July entered under date of accident, involved in the for Burns’ vehicle two other vehicles. Pursuant to its well as AFFIRMED. policy, paid to

interpretation of its Allstate $10,- representatives of Burns estate coverage

000 in uninsured motorist benefits. Burns, wrongful death beneficiaries action, plaintiffs in this assert that even BEGGERLY; Begger- though policy the Allstate contains an “anti- R. Chris W. James ly; stacking” Beggerly; provision, the uninsured motorist M. B. Gar- Clark Velma ner; Reed; Reed, coverage provide a total should be stacked Suzanne David Plain- $10,000 $30,000 (i.e., tiffs-Appellants, recovery for each of vehicles). They covered claim All- the three $20,000 them an additional state owes America, UNITED STATES uninsured motorist benefits. Allstate admits Defendant-Appellee. plaintiffs, wrongful as the death 95-60625. No. Burns, have dam- beneficiaries suffered $30,000. ages of at least Appeals, United States Court of Fifth Circuit. initiated, After this lawsuit was the district April court an order on entered May pending staying this action a decision Rehearing July As Corrected on Mississippi Court Harrison v. Allstate, (Miss.1995). 662 So.2d

Harrison decision was rendered on October

26, 1995, and held that the insured could Jr., Taylor,

Ernest G. Robert Minard Ar- entson, Jr., Crockett, Marielle Christine Wat- kins, Stennis, MS, Jackson, Ludlam & Plaintiffs-Appellants. Lazarus, Martin Mat-

William Brandt W. zen, DC, Waits, Washington, Monroe Donald Biloxi, MS, ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‍Attorney, Assistant U.S. for De- fendant-Appellee. III, Atlanta, GA,

Henry Granberry, D. Foundation, Legal Amicus Cu- Southeastern riae. Rademaeher, Joseph J. Wer-

John Jerome deriteh, Stientjes, Ridge, Park Michael Jоhn IL, for American Farm Bureau Federation Federation, Mississsippi Farm Bureau Amici Curiae. quieted title was in favor of the United

States.2 disappointment Their with the results the settlement led the to mount POLITZ, Judge, and Chief Before sup- patent search for a land to exhaustive STEWART, M. and EMILIO GARZA They port claim of title. wrote letters their Judges. Circuit officials, public Freedom of Informa- to made requests, land records tion Act and searched POLITZ, Judge: Chief Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, in and Beggerlys appeal thе district court’s The Washington, Finally, Beg- in 1991 the D.C. granting motion to dismiss the order gerlys genealogical specialist a hired Beggerlys’ denying the and United States in National Ar- who conducted research judgment in which summary cross-motion and the Boudreau Grant chives discovered judgment sought vacate a consent to supported Beggerlys’ claim of title. which acquired title the United States under which reportedly had searched Government officials Beggerlys. by the property previously to held during quiet the Natiоnal Archives title Beggerlys Concluding that the are entitled to this document suit but had not discovered remand. sought, relief we reverse and erroneously and thereafter advised the court Beggerlys and the that Horn Island had BACKGROUND privately disposed. Begger- The never been Sr., Beggerly, April 1950 Clark M. On lys Manage- contacted the Bureau of Land family, bought portion a of on behalf of his requesting patent ment the issuance of a land Island, Mexico, Horn offshore the Gulf summarily for Horn Island. The BLM de- Jackson, Mississippi. sale in On at a tax request. nied their 8,1971 January Congress legislation enacted Beggerlys the instant action The then filed authorizing Department of Interior seeking on June to set aside the park on lands that includ- establish a federal judgment just and to recover Horn Island.1 In 1972 the National Park ed pensation. government The moved to dis- began negotiating Beggerlys with the Service complaint, invoking miss the Fed.R.Civ.P. purchase property of their on Horn for the 12(b)(6) 12(b)(1). Beggerlys and filed a Beggerlys In 1975 the en- Island. October summary judgment cross-motion for into a contract to sell the land to the tered filed an amended motion to add the Tucker $156,500. government Subsequently the jurisdiction- Act3 and the Title Act4 as contending government canceled the contract granted al The district court bases. pat- it had never issued a land that because government’s motion to dismiss and denied ent, it was the title owner of Horn Island. Beggerlys’ summary cross-motion for government brought quiet In 1979 the Beg- and motion to amend. The title action the Southern District Missis- timely gerlys appealed. sippi against Beggerlys and other defen- During discovery Beggerlys dants. ANALYSIS title, sought proof .government their Sovereign Immunity 1. ostensibly thorough officials conducted public gov- government land records. The contends that sover search formally represented eign immunity Beggerlys pro bars from ernment then ceeding Beggerlys part equity. and the district court that no with an Zegura granted government had to a The relies on v. United of Horn Island ever been and, private soverеign a result of in which we held that im landowner as these States5 representations, government per- munity brought barred a bill of review 1982 the Beggerlys accept prior judgment suaded the a settlement vacate obtained agreement proposed. it The district court United States. The Eleventh Circuit viewed agree- Zegura controlling authority prop for the entered based as ment; $208,175.87 Beggerlys osition that an action could not received § § U.S.C. 459h. 4. 28 U.S.C. 2409a. Adams, S79-0338(R) 2. United States v. No. (5th Cir.), denied, cert. 5. 104 F.2d 34 (S.D.Miss. 3, 1982). Dec. §§ 3. 28 U.S.C. against government absent a ed the defendant brought (4) obtaining immunity.6 defense; the benefit of We are not his waiver of negligence absence of fault or Zegura find on the persuaded so and do not defendant; part of the the absence Zegura only with a controlling herein. dealt any adequate remedy at law.9 review, type equitable which is a bill replaced by the motions action that has been have satisfied these elements. 60(b). Although enumerated in Fed.R.Civ.P. We now hold that the district cоurt erred as equity action in is similar to denying a matter of Beggerlys’ law judgment. a bill of review and its modern successors— action to vacate the consent Cru- 60(b) motions —it is nonetheless a cial to that determination the Rule is our conclusion 60(b) failing district court erred in different action. Rule makes the dis- clear, recognize validity the of the Boudreau stating tinction that it does not “limit Grant. That English document is an translation of a power indepen- a of court to entertain an Spanish grant land which the Gover- dent action.” therefore conclude that We Spanish conveyed nor General of Louisiana Zegura independent does not control Horn Island to Catarina Boudreau. Al- action context. though the available document is not the independent We have held that an action original grant, only available, it copy is the filed the same court that rendered the presumably destroyed because a fire original judgment is a continuation of the Spanish West Floridа where the archives original subject purposes action for of matter original Spanish version would have been jurisdiction.7 It to tor- would be anomalous stored. The Court has held that a pedo party bringing a action Spanish grant certified translation of a land plea sovereign immunity awith when the may prove grant be used to existence a reality origi- action is in a continuation of the where the cannot be found or has nal lawsuit in which was not an destroyed.10 been We therefоre find and government issue. To allow the to use sover- English conclude that the translation is the eign immunity previously a shield it where original grant best evidence of the and is pre- has and invoked the court’s prove admissible to its existence. misrepresentations, vailed based its government argu- The at contended oral negligence, unacceptable or mistake would do merely ment that the Boudreau Grant was an justice. violence to our basic notions of We applicatiоn patent. early for a land In the agree colleagues our therefore with century Congress 19th established land com- Second Circuit and now conclude and hold organize private missions to claims of governmental required consent is not to landowners, in what are now the states of bring the same Louisiana, Alabama, Florida, Mississippi, and court as action.8 acquired property Eng- who had their land, Spain. France or Heirs of Catarina Independent 2. The Action presented Bоudreau to Boudreau Grant of an elements ac the land commissioner for claims east of the tion are: accepted. Pearl River. It was not The land (1) not, ought equity a which responsible commissioners were for ascer- (2) conscience, enforced; good and to be taining titles claims but did not have the good alleged to defense cause of action authority adjudicate controlling to title. The founded; on which the required statute that the commissioners sub- fraud, accident, prevent- Congress or mistake which mit claims to for final action.11 Timmons, (11th Bank, (8th Cir.1903)), 6. United States v. 672 F.2d 1373 120 F. cert. de 1982). nied, Cir. 399 U.S. ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‍26 L.Ed.2d (1970). Virginia George 7. West Oil & Gas Co. v. E. Breece Co., 1954). Lumber 213 F.2d 702 Cir. Heirs, (12 Delespine's 10. United States v. Pet.) States, (2d 8. Weldon v. United 70 F.3d 1 Cir. 1995). 713; April general 11. Act of 2 Stat. see States, Percheman, (7 Pet.) 51, Mortgage ly 9. Bankers v.Co. United United States v. (5th Cir.) 604 (1833). (quoting Sur. National Co. State L.Ed. privately land herein remained owned after the must therefore conclude We accept applica- commissioner’s refusal Louisiana Purchase and did not enter the conclusively determine that Horn public tion did not domain of the United States until the belonged States. Island misrepresentation-based abundantly that the clear land It is authority government possessed a not have the to con- document missioners did by rightfully private Beggerlys’ owned claim property fiscate that was vital to the of title that, acquired It is well-settled absent on Horn individuals. to the land had Is act, validly grant- land specific congressional Notwithstanding, represented it land. privately foreign nаtion remained ed court that no district acquired polit- owned after the United States evidence existed that Horn Island had ever subject area. Chief Jus- ical control of privately representation been owned. This taught: tice John Marshall precipitated Beggerlys’ involuntary set nations, usage modern which has government’s lawsuit. Then- tlement violated; law, that sense become would inability prove directly their title was justice right which is acknowl- government’s pro failure to caused еdged and felt the whole civilized world grant misrepresentation duce the and its outraged, private property if would be private disposal no had ever been made. confiscated, generally pri- should be and injustice Equity permits us to correct in ex rights people change annulled. The vate traordinary and unusual circumstances such allegiance; their their relation to their an- presented. as are- here We exercise that dissolved; sovereign but rela- cient is their аuthority Beggerlys and as to the set aside other, rights tions to each and their challenged as null and property, remain undisturbed.12 ab void initio.14 treaty Articles II and III of the consummat- Quiet Title Act Purchase, Claim ing under which the the Louisiana acquired property United States south of the Beggerlys filed a motion to located,13 parallel Horn 31st where Island is complaint amend their to claim relief under protected rights private expressly Quiet Title and Tucker Acts. The dis beyond landowners. We considеr it serious trict court denied that motion. We read the if debate that the Boudreau Grant was a Beggerlys’ complaint motion for sum grant Spanish valid land under the law of mary judgment stating as alternative causes 1781, private then Horn Island remained Although of action. court the district did not If, property Louisiana after the Purchase. jurisdiction have over an inverse condemna however, incomplete grant or invalid Act,15 tion action under the Tucker it did law, Spanish under then land commis- jurisdiction adjudiсate have under title justified rejection. sioner was his We Quiet Act. that Title We conclude the dis therefore, inquire, validity as to the trict court abused its discretion and should Spanish Boudreau Grant under law at the Beggerlys have allowed the to amend then- summary judgment time it was made. The complaint requested because amend “[t]he contains an affidavit Professor ment would have done no more than state an Baade, Beggerlys Hans offered jurisdictional recovery alternative basis for that the Boudreau evidence Grant was previously alleged.”16 the facts plete Spanish under the and valid law of Begger The record reflects that the 1781. On the record before us the Boudreau lys legally acquired part of Horn Island in complete vested and valid title Ca- Grant record, therefore, tax tarina that sale. Because we have set aside the Boudreau. On property Beggerlys we must conclude that the at issue earlier as to the ty. Mktg. Corp., 12. Percheman at 86-87. In re West Texas 12 F.3d 497 (5th Cir.1994). Louisiana, 1, 13. United States v. 961, 4 L.Ed.2d (vesting §§ 15. See 28 U.S.C. exclusive Neilson, (1960); L.Ed.2d 1096 Foster v. jurisdiction in the Federal Court of Claims (2 Pet.) (1829), overruled on $10,000). exceeding claims grounds by other Percheman. Stanmore, 16. Miller v. 14. We note that there are no fixed time limita- Cir.1981). bringing equi- tions on action in GARZA, found that the United States has no M. Judge, have EMILIO Circuit land, validity legitimate claim to the of dissenting: Beggerlys’ legal certainty. title is agree I with much today’s majority maintains, however, government that a claim opinion. agree I majority with the that the Titlе Act is barred unless it under complaint is not a motion under Fed.R.Civ.P. years is commenced within 12 of the date on 60(b)(1) (6), and that it properly should more — A which it accrued.17 claim is deemed to be considered an equi- action in plaintiff on the date accrue knows or ty, Beggerly explicitly since eq- invoked the should have known about the claim of the jurisdiction uitable of the district court in his Beggerlys knew about States.18 complaint. agree I majority with the the claim at the earliest in 1976 when the the district court in dismissing erred government negotiations ceased contract untimely, action as because there is no fixed purchase with them of their Horn period equitable limitations for such actions. property. years passed Island More than finally, agree And I majority with the Beggerlys before the commenced current equities Beggerly of this case favor action; however, may a statute of limitations family. However, his because we do not equitable grounds. “Equitable on tolled provide rеlief, have such I tolling applies principally plaintiff where the part company must majority. with the As actively is misled the defendant about the judges, equitable we have discretion to do prevented cause of action or some ex- justice law, within the traordinary way limits of the but asserting rights.”19 from his we government may go case, can no govern- On the record before us the further. In this period, not espe- benefit the limitations ment has not waived its cially light diligence displayed by suit, which bars our provide seeking pur- the truth and relief. suing rights, their which resulted in their matter, As an initial I would not treat an discovering grant apparently that not even independent in equity as a “continua- public custodians of the land records could or underlying tion” of the ancillary suit with would locate. We conclude that the limita- jurisdiction from the action. In a period tions tolled the time the context, similar Supreme appears Court Beggerlys began searching for evidence of a ancillary have foreсlosed the notion of private disposal during original quiet ac- jurisdiction one, in eases such as this involv- tion until discovered the Boudreau ing challenge agreement to a settlement in and, thus, Grant manifestly that their action federal court. Kokkonen v. Guardian Life 12-year was filed within peri- limitations Am., 375, 380, Ins. Co. 511 114 U.S. S.Ct. od. (1994) (“No 128 L.Ed.2d 391 case remand to We the district court so that it asserts, of ours nor concept do we think the may judgment enter in quieting title favor of jurisdiction permits of limited federal us to 2409a(b) Beggerlys. § Under 28 U.S.C. assеrt, ancillary jurisdiction any agree- over option the United delivering States has the part ment that has as of its consideration the possession of the 729 acres claimed court.”). dismissal of a case before a federal Beggerlys may posses- or it elect to retain Furthermore, Fifth long Circuit has pay Beggerlys just sion thereof and independent jur held that actions must have pensation for same. The district court is to independent judgments they isdiction $208,- compensation take into account the challenge. Mortgage Bankers Co. v. United Beggerlys 175.87 received in the 1982 States, (5th 73, Cir.), 423 F.2d 78 cert. de settlement. The of the district nied, 927, 2242, 399 U.S. 90 26 S.Ct. L.Ed.2d court is REVERSED and is REN- (1970); Watts, (5th in 793 Jones v. 142 F.2d 575 DERED favor of the and this Cir.), denied, 787, 310, proceed- cause is REMANDED ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‍cert. for further 65 S.Ct. ings (1944); consistent herewith. Zegura 89 L.Ed. 628 v. United 2409a(g). § 17. applied against 28 U.S.C. States. Irwin v. 89, Affairs, Department Veterans 111 18. Id. 453, S.Ct. 112 L.Ed.2d 435 Lines, 19. Rashidi v. American President 96 F.3d 124, (5th Cir.1996). Equitable tolling may 128

490 (5th Cir.), States, cert. de completely it on a inapposite here because 35 104 F.2d Virgi- footing. West jurisdictional different nied, nia Oil parties was a case which the could (1939).1 in federal court not review George v. E. Virginia & Gas Oil West ancillary jurisdiction. Beggerly, on without Lumber, majority, ap- Breece cited hand, pursued could have this suit the other exception to this an pears to have created conferring different statutes under several Virginia Oil was a feder- general rule. West jurisdiction independent of that federal parties diversity to the al case which original action. The federal courts would diverse, indepеndent judg- have had over but after original action were Act, timely action under Title ment, property at stake defeated sales of the 2409a; Act, § the Tucker 28 U.S.C. U.S.C. diversity. complete 213 F.2d 1491; probably general ques- § federal Oil, Cir.1954). Virginia West In we held § (put- under 28 tion U.S.C. continuing had diversi- that the district court ting sovereign immunity to side for the one origi- ty jurisdiction to correct errors moment). is no to assert Because there need Id. at 706-07. The “ancillary judgment. nal ancillary jurisdiction underly- to review the Virginia of West Oil reasoning jurisdiction” court, Virgi- West ing in federal settlement light precedential value in has little or no nia Oil is not on point, even to the extent holding in Kokkonen or Supreme Court’s good place.2 it in the first that was ever law cases, light prior reflected most of our My concern over characterization of Mortgage, in which Bankers recently in we ancillary independent suit as or is not as this independent action be required an my other concerns: waiver of sov- serious independent and substаn- “founded proper ereign and the reach of the jurisdiction.” at equitable 423 F.2d tive majority opinion. Virginia extent that West Moreover, is, course, immune The United States consent, v. without its Oil has any precedent, value as the case is from suit Loeffler among Virginia simply recognize West Oil court cited a 1. I that there is a conflict regarding ancillary jurisdic- ac other circuits whether Court case that found 60(b) motions, independent jurisdiction. require Compare precursor tions tion for the Rule States, (2d Cir. ancillary jurisdiction Weldon v. United held that there was similar 1995) (holding actions are an actions. Mills, suit) cillary Crosby to Virginia West Oil court on relied Pacific Cir.1969) (same) 1273, F.2d 1275 with In Railway Railroad Missouri v. Missouri Hunter, 1002, (9th Cir.1995) of Pacific re 66 F.3d 1005-06 505, 522, Co., 583, 592, U.S. 4 S.Ct. 28 L.Ed. 111 (rejecting ancillary jurisdiction of in inde notion (1884), equity a 498 which involved bill in to Timmons, actions); pendent v. 672 United States judgment vacate a on the basis of fraud. The bill 1373, (11th Cir.1982) (same); and F.2d 1378-79 (one equity in that case was a bill of review of in States, 988, 202 F.2d Andrade v. United Ct.Cl. 485 60(b)), independent the forebears of Rule not an denied, 660, (same), cert. U.S. 664 419 (charac equity. Zegura, in 104 F.2d at 35 action 831, 55, (1974). S.Ct. 42 L.Ed.2d 57 See also 95 terizing the bill in Railroad as a "bill of Wright, Mary Miller & 11 Charles A. Arthur R. Pacific Procedure; review"). ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‍Kane, little Therefore Pacific Railroad has or Kay & Federal Practice Civil (2d ed.1995) precedential independent force for actions. A (supporting § no notion of 2868 at 403 review, motion, 60(b) jurisdiction, citing generally bill of like a Rule had to be ancillary R. Pacific Co., 505, 522, Ry. brought Pac. 4 in the court that rendered Co. v. Missouri 583, 592-93, (1884)); essentially request reopen 7 James that the court S.Ct. 60.38[1], Moore, Moore’s Federal Practice V W. to reverse or correct a final decree. ed.1995) (2d (same). Kane, Wright, at 60-399 Miller & Federal Practice & Pro cedure; §Civil 2867 at 394. The unremarkable reopen judgment enjoys that a motion to fact Virginia opinion solely West Oil relies on Our ancillary jurisdiction therefore not disturb should misreading prece- apparent Supreme an of Court holding independent precedents our that actions Oil, Virginia In West the court confused dent. independent еquity in are founded an history independent actions and the com- equitable jurisdiction. Bankers Mort substantive separate predecessors mon law actions of gage, agree 423 F.2d at 78. I with the Bankers 60(b). Independent actions are dis- Fed.R.Civ.P. court, apparently tinct, Mortgage circumstances and "should under no Kokkonen, important Court in that it is not ancillary equita- common law and confused with remedies, substitute, conceptually confuse two distinct avenues for ble or their modem 60(b) Mortgage, motion." Bankers 423 F.2d at review. Frank, 549, 554, 1965, My final concern majority is that (1988), 1969, 100 L.Ed.2d 549 and we are to reaches opinion. issues not before us in this sovereign immunity Even if construe waivers of there were a waiver of sovereign immunity case, sovereign.” “strictly in favor of the United this we would have no Ohio, Dep’t Energy v. to reach the Beggerly’s States merits of summary judgment, cross motion for 118 L.Ed.2d 255 S.Ct. the va- lidity Grant, of the Boudreau Beggerly statutory or the can cite no waiv- owner- Island, ship of Horn case, majority as the sovereign immunity er of in this either does. fraught These issues are original independent in the action or in with difficult fact questions that must majority bypasses be decided question action. The the dis- court, trict which sovereign immunity by holding alone has “gov- that Moreover, consider them. required majority bring ernmental consent is not should not have reached those on the same court as the issues incomplete summary aetion[,]” original citing the Second Circuit’s before us, States, but instead should opinion in v. have remanded Weldon Unitеd them (2d Cir.1995). the district court. I Regardless equities respectful- Therefore of the ly case, dissent. any governmental individual always prerequisite required is as a to feder- jurisdiction. Loeffler,

al 486 U.S. at

S.Ct. at 1968-69. opinion

The Second Circuit’s is Weldon contrary. Although

not to the the Second agrees majority Circuit Weldon with the FULLER, Aaron Lee Petitioner- that actions are “continuations” Appellant, original they challenge, actions court not does claim waiver of Weldon, unnecessary. In Gary JOHNSON, Director, L. Texas De- parties sued under the Federal Tort Claims partment Justice, of Criminal Institu- suit, original Act in the which constituted a Division, Respondent-Appellee. tional statutory sovereign immunity. waiver that, at 2. F.3d The Weldon court held be- No. 96-10027. essentially cause the action was Appeals, States Court suit, gov- continuation of the Fifth Circuit. sovereign immunity ernment’s waiver of action should continue to bind May subsequent United States chal- lenge. suggest Id. does not Weldon unnecessary, only may

waiver is that it original

continued from the suit. So even if

we were to find in the instant case that

independent actions should be considered a original

continuation of the actions chal- (a

lenge point dispute), I still ‍‌​​​​​‌‌‌​​​‌​‌​‌‌‌‌​​‌‌‌‌‌​​‌​‌​‌‌​​‌​‌​​​‌​​‌​‍there would sovereign immunity

still be no waiver of action for us to continue. Of

course, equitably we cannot waive government; on behalf of the

therefore we do not have to con-

sider this suit.3 Presumably timely challenge immunity, infirmity not suffer from this would action under the Title Act or the Tucker equity. action in Act, statutory each of which involves a waiver of

Case Details

Case Name: Chris W. Beggerly James R. Beggerly Clark M. Beggerly Velma B. Garner Suzanne Reed David Reed v. United States

Court Name: Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

Date Published: Jul 28, 1997

Citation: 114 F.3d 484

Docket Number: 95-60625

Court Abbreviation: 5th Cir.