Colley v. James

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 mere claim of right is not coercive” and that plaintiff had failed to adequately allege an illegal exaction claim where plaintiff showed “neither a prohibition nor coercive government action[]”
• reaching merits of illegal exaction claim and concluding that the court “need not resolve the issue of whether Customs’ collection constitutes an ‘in effect’ illegal exaction because this is a merits issue, not a jurisdictional one”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).