In re K.P.-M.

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that the court has no authority to grant equitable relief unless it is tied and subordinate to a money judgment (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 5, 89 S.Ct. 1501, 23 L.Ed.2d 52 (1969
• refusing to apply continuing claims doctrine, in similar circumstances, where plaintiffs alleged that the United States’ “continued and repeated refusal to recognize [plaintiffs] as the rightful owners of [the disputed parcel] should be considered a continuing wrong”
• construction of houses on disputed property was “clearly an open and notorious activity” putting plaintiffs on notice of the government’s actions
• “It is well-established that the Court of Federal Claims generally does not have the authority to entertain declaratory judgment requests.”
• \It is well-established that the Court of Federal Claims generally does not have the authority to entertain declaratory judgment requests.\
• \It is well-established that the Court of Federal Claims generally does not have the authority to entertain declaratory judgment requests.\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).