United States v. Krutsinger

How courts have described this case

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

• upholding jurisdiction under the Tucker Act because the “plaintiffs explicitly seek a monetary remedy,” despite other language in the complaint in that suit which could have been construed to constitute a request for a declaratory judgment
• stating clear and convincing evidence is needed to prove “government deceit”
• the assumption that the Court of Claims has no equity jurisdiction is an “ancient but inaccurate shibboleth”
• “[M]erely because the court must make a ruling of law . . . in order to arrive at a money judgment does not render this court’s decision a ‘declaratory judgment.’”
• “Equitable doctrines can be employed incidentally to this court’s general monetary jurisdiction either as equitable procedures to arrive at a money judgment or as substantive principles on which to base the award of a money judgment.” (internal citations omitted)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).