Engage Learning, Inc. v. Salazar

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 under [the Tucker Act] requires” that plaintiff plead sufficient facts to establish the existence of a contract with the government
• finding that “the Board erred in dismissing this claim on jurisdictional grounds” even though the plaintiff “failed to allege at least two of the five requisite conditions” for the formation of a contract
• noting that at the summary judgment stage of proceedings, “the court’s function is not to make credibility determinations and weigh the evidence so as to determine the truth, but rather to determine whether a genuine factual dispute exists for trial”
• addressing jurisdiction over contract dispute under the Contract Disputes Act (CDA
• “[A] dismissal on the merits usually carries res judicata effect whereas a dismissal for lack of jurisdiction typically does not.”
• “Courts frequently confuse or conflate the distinction between subject matter jurisdiction and the essential elements of a claim for relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).