Davidow v. Anderson

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that the right a plaintiff “seeks to vindicate is not a contract right” even if the case “requires some reference to or incorporation of the contract”
• noting that “the Court of Federal Claims has exclusive jurisdiction” over claims in which the plaintiff asserts a contractual right “and seeks ‘in essence’ more than $10,000 in monetary relief from the federal government”
• cautioning against “creative drafting of complaints … to avoid the jurisdictional consequences of the Tucker Act” (cleaned up)
• describing the benefits of equitable relief requested there including “the certainty of knowing whether [certain procedures] apply” and “an answer to the question whether [the government] has authority” to take certain challenged actions
• describing the benefits of equitable relief requested there including “the certainty of knowing whether [certain procedures] apply” and “an answer to the question whether the [government] has authority” to take certain challenged actions
• applying Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis, 672 F.2d 959, 968 (D.C. Cir. 1982)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).