Kathrein Grady v. Carl H. Linder, Esq., and Greenspoon Marder, LLP

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that, to establish the existence of an express contract, a plaintiff must demonstrate the actual authority to bind the government in' contract on the part of the government official whose conduct is relied upon
• holding that to establish the existence ofeither an express or implied-in-fact contact with the United states, a plaintiff must show: (1) mutuality of intenu (2) consideration; (3) lack of ambiguity in the offer and acoeptance; and (4
• explaining that the Tucker Act does not create jurisdiction in our comi when the propriety of a seizure is contested.
• finding no takings liability when a laptop seized pursuant to a law enforcement investigation was returned after its hard drive had failed while in government custody, which deleted most of the business software on the laptop
• finding no takings liability when a laptop seized pursuant to a law enforcement investigation was returned after its hard drive had failed while in government custody, which deleted most of the business software on the laptop
• “The complaint further fails to allege facts indicating the mutual intent required for an implied-in-fact contract. A seizure, essentially by definition, lacks mutual intent.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).