Roat v. State

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 lacked jurisdiction over the plaintiffs civil rights claim due to plaintiffs failure to provide a money-mandating statute
• “This court does not have jurisdiction to entertain general civil rights claims that are not based upon an appropriate money-mandating provision.”
• “This court does not have jurisdiction to entertain general civil rights claims that are not based upon an appropriate money-mandating provision.”
• “This court does not have jurisdiction to entertain general civil rights claims that are not based upon an appropriate money-mandating provision.”
• the general civil rights claims alleged are not based on any money-mandating provisions, and do not give rise to liability for the United Slates
• “[A] plaintiff must make a showing that there is probable jurisdiction in the district court.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).