Rick's Mishroom Service, Inc. 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 a cooperative agreement did “not provide a substantive right to recover money-damages”
• concluding that the plaintiff did not “point to” a provision of its “cost-share agreement” that was breached but alleged only an implied-in-fact indemnity, and consequently dismissing the action for lack of appropriation
• holding that compliance with FTCA statute of limitations is jurisdictional requirement
• holding that compliance with FTCA statute of limitations is jurisdictional requirement
• stating that this Court lacks jurisdiction over tort claims due to the plain language of the Tucker Act
• stating that “[t]he piain language of the Tucker Act excludes from the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction claims sounding in tort”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).