Rolls-Royce Limited, Derby, England, a British Company v. The United States and United Aircraft Corporation, Defendant-Intervenor

How courts have described this case

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

• “[T]he court cannot, through its acknowledged rule-making power, expand its jurisdiction beyond the limits prescribed by Congress.”
• both invalidating the use of court rules when such use had the effect of expanding the court’s subject matter jurisdiction
• narrowly defining the scope of the interests resolvable under the court’s third-party practice statute—the Contract Settlement Act of 1944, 41 U.S.C. § 114(b), (c) (1988)
• “The statute is a procedural one and does not supply an independent ground of jurisdiction where none otherwise exists.”
• court does not have jurisdiction over actions by plaintiff against third parties or vice-versa
• narrowly defining the scope of the third-party practice statute

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).