James R. Matias v. The United States

How courts have described this case

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

• “[Plaintiff] seeks correction of his military records and back pay. Both of these issues fall squarely within the Claims Court’s Tucker Act jurisdiction.”
• in turn quoting Bowling v. United States, 713 F.2d 1558, 1560 (Fed. Cir. 1983)
• “[Q]uestions of fact resolved by military courts are not subject to collateral attack.”
• back pay litigation under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491
• “When an issue has been briefed and argued before a military court, it has received full and fair consideration, even if that court disposes of the claim summarily with a statement that it did not consider the issue meritorious or requiring discussion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).