Army and Air Force Exchange Service v. Sheehan

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that jurisdiction does not include appointed NAFI employees
• stating that money damages is an available remedy only when regulations specifically authorize it
• pointing out that the statutes are identical, save for the Little Tucker Act’s concurrent jurisdiction provision for claims not exceeding $10,000
• \explicitly reject[ing] the argument that `the violation of any statute or regulation . . . automatically creates a cause of action against the United States for money damages' \
• appointed employee of AAFES may not bring suit under the Tucker Act relying on implicit-in-fact contract based on AAFES personnel regulations
• Tucker Act does not grant jurisdiction over suits brought by appointed employees

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).