M.E.S., Inc. v. Snell

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the court would only consider the text and caption of the original timely NOA because the amended notice naming a new appellant was not filed until beyond the 60-day limit
• explaining that the court cannot consider “non-conclusory, non-hearsay statements outside the pleadings . . . under Rule 12(b)(6) unless they are incorporated within or integral to the complaint”
• refusing to extend Bivens to a due process claim given the existence of a comprehensive statutory scheme covering contract disputes with the United States Government
• finding no jurisdiction to review claim advanced by individual who was entirely absent from the original timely notice of appeal
• rejecting Bivens remedy where “plaintiffs constitutional claims originate in contract obligations for which the comprehensive procedural and substantive provisions of the [Contract Disputes'Act] afford meaningful—and exclusive-remedies against the United' States”
• “Precisely because Bivens is a judicially created remedy, however, federal courts have been reluctant to recognize such implied relief.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).