Matthews v. Misener Marine

How courts have described this case

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

• explaining that under the Tucker Act the “Court of Claims has exclusive jurisdiction over all non-tort claims (including contract claims) for monetary relief in excess of $10,000 against the United States” (emphasis added)
• cautioning that courts “must not” interpret the Tucker Act “so broad[ly] as to deny a court jurisdiction to consider a claim that is validly based on grounds other than a contractual relationship with the government”
• explaining that “a plaintiff whose claims against the United States are essentially contractual should not be allowed to avoid the jurisdictional (and hence remedial) restrictions of the Tucker Act” by requesting injunctive relief in district court
• finding proper district court subject matter jurisdiction over a suit brought under the Trade Secret Act to protect secrets provided in conjunction with a government contract
• rejecting government argument that plaintiff had adequate remedy in Court of Claims when plaintiff alleged that the trade secrets it sought to protect were “the very economic life blood” of the company
• listing, as examples, “a license . . . raised as a defense in an 12 action for trespass, or a purchase contract . . . raised to counter an action for conversion”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).