Casa De Cambio Comdiv S.A., De C v. V. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a claim based on a new theory not mentioned in the plaintiff’s complaint was “waived” and as it was “not properly raised[,]” did not need to be addressed
• holding that, even if “[the regulations] were money-mandating as to [third party],” they “are not money-mandating as to [plaintiff] since there is no indication that they were designed to convey rights to [members of plaintiff's class]”
• holding that, even if “[the regulations] were money-mandating as to [a third party],” they “are not money-mandating as to [plaintiff] since there is no indication that they were designed to convey rights on [members of plaintiff’s class]”
• stating that an “illegal exaction under the Due Process clause exists only if money has been ‘improperly exacted or retained’ by the government” (quoting United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392, 401 (1976))
• declining to address the plaintiff’s theory “because it was not properly raised” when “[n]o mention of this theory appears in [the plaintiff’s] complaint”
• referring to the Aerolinea Argentinas obligations as “costs that the government had a legal duty to bear”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).