Moden v. United States

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is permissible where a claimant asserts a frivolous claim
• observing that causation must be shown in an inverse condemnation case because it is necessary to establish liability
• determining that an injury is “the direct, natural, or probable result” when the injury was “the foreseeable and predictable result of the authorized [government act].”
• stating that “to the extent the Modens have a nonfrivolous takings claim founded upon the Fifth Amendment, jurisdiction under the Tucker Act is proper”
• emphasizing that dismissal for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is appropriate where the allegations contained in the complaint are “foreclosed by prior decisions”
• explaining that the Court of Federal Claims has jurisdiction over a Fifth Amendment takings claim only if plaintiffs “have a nonfrivolous takings claim”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).