Montgomery v. Congress of 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.

• commenting that to impose an inflexible strict liability rule even on an activity such as blasting without consideration of the circumstances would be incorrect
• explaining that a plaintiff must point to “a specific and mandatory regulation, statute[,] or policy”
• explaining that we have discretion, but no duty, to consider “untimely raised legal theories” in support of subject-matter 6 jurisdiction
• recognizing “general rule [that] we refuse to consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal unless . . . jurisdiction is in question”
• recognizing court most likely to depart from general rule \when we are presented with a strictly legal question the proper resolution of which is beyond doubt or when manifest injustice would otherwise result\
• stating that we have no duty to consider waived arguments supporting subject-matter jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).