Goldstein v. Noble

How courts have described this case

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

• concluding that the COFC does not have jurisdiction over claims arising under Title II of the ADA
• dismissing plaintiff’s “claims concerning violations of HIPAA because the statute does not provide for a private right of action against the [f]ederal [g]overnment.”
• “[T]his court lacks jurisdiction to consider whether the United States District Court [ ] abused its discretion....”
• “Congress has not waived the Federal Government's sovereign immunity with regard to ADA claims”
• “[I]t is apparent that no private right of action exists under the Act.”
• “The United States is not liable for the actions of non-federal parties who are not agents of the United States.” (citing Brazos Elec. Power Coop. v. U.S. Dep’t of Agric., 144 F.3d 784, 787 (Fed.Cir.1998))

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).