Patterson v. Stickney

How courts have described this case

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

• stating that “[i]t is well established that claims for back pay stemming from allegedly unlawful separation from active duty in the armed services are within the jurisdiction of the Court of Federal claims____”
• inquiring whether late-filed claim was a “logical product of the general fact situation” set forth in original pleading
• finding 18 U.S.C. § 245 not to be money mandating because it does not confer “a substantive right to recover money damages against the United States”
• finding 18 U.S.C. § 245(b)(i)(B)-(C) not to be money mandating because its provisions do not confer “a substantive right to recover money damages against the United States”
• “A claimant’s failure to raise an issue during BCMR proceedings constitutes a waiver of the issue in this court.”
• “A claimant’s failure to raise an issue during [A]BCMR proceedings constitutes a waiver of the issue in this court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).