Rouw v. Rouw

How courts have described this case

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

• examining plaintiff’s APA claims and concluding that the “claims are not ‘for money damages’ ”
• finding claim 3 contractually based where the plaintiff was “asking the district court to decide what its 4 contract rights [were]”
• finding the district 7 court lacked federal jurisdiction where only one of the three limitations applied
• distinguishing, for jurisdictional purposes, between contract rights and statutory rights that “exist independent of the . . . Contract”
• finding the Tucker Act applied where plaintiff’s “claims do not exist independent of the Modification Center Contract” and plaintiff was “asking the district court to decide what its contract rights are”
• “It is beyond question . . . that the APA does not provide an independent basis for subject matter jurisdiction in the district courts.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).