Rodríguez Rodríguez v. Oropeza Ramos

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 plaintiff company’s president and sole shareholder had no contract with the United States in his individual capacity
• “Our Rule [17(a)] requires that ‘Every action shall be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest[.]’ ”
• “[A]s a general rule there can be no implied contract where there is an express contract between the parties covering the same subject.”
• stockholder had no standing with respect to contracts to which only corporate contractor and government were parties
• implied-in-fact contract held to exist, but plaintiff had no right to storage charges for the period following the Government’s request for permission to remove the property from the premises
• an express contract “speaks for itself and leaves no place for implications.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).