United States v. Yingst

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in cases involving a taking of a security interest, the “critical inquiry” is whether the liens were enforceable at the time the government took title to the property
• holding that attempt by construction company to assert a mechanic’s lien against government-owned housing project “ignore[d] the long-settled rule that [such] liens ... are not enforceable against the United States or its property”
• stating that an unjust enrichment theory of recovery is based upon a contract implied in law, over which this court has not been given jurisdiction
• finding no implied contract between the United States and construction company when company entered into a contract with the owner of a housing project despite the housing project being funded by the Department of Housing and Urban Development
• although HUD might be suable in other courts upon certain causes of action, Tucker Act places limits upon Court of Claims' jurisdiction over them
• government did not sign contract with plaintiff, and there were no communications between the government and plaintiff

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).