Case Precedences, Just some Odds & Ends I had: These constitutional provisions employ the word person, that is, anyone whom we have permitted to peaceably reside within our borders may resort to our courts for redress of an injury done him in his land, goods, person or reputation. The real party plaintiff for whom the nominal plaintiff sues is not shown to have entered our land in an unlawful manner. We said to her, you may enter and reside with us and be equally protected by our laws so long as you conform thereto. You may own property and our laws will protect your title. Leiberg v. Vitangeli, 70 Ohio App. 479, 47 N.E.2d 235, 238-39 (1942). Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 (1970) The termination of welfare benefits must be preceded by a full evidentiary hearing under the Due Process Clause. Although the Tucker Act waives the sovereign immunity of the United States for claims for money damages, it “itself does not create a substantive cause of action; in order to come within the jurisdictional reach and the waiver of the Tucker Act, a plaintiff must identify a separate source of substantive law that creates the right to money damages.” Greenlee County, Ariz. v. United States, 487 F.3d 871, 875 (Fed. Cir. 2007) (quoting Fisher v. United States, 402 F.3d 1167, 1172 (Fed. Cir. 2005)). The Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491 (2000), confers upon the Court of Federal Claims jurisdiction to “render judgment upon any claim against the United States founded either upon the Constitution, or any Act of Congress or any regulation of an executive department, or upon any express or implied contract with the United States, or for liquidated or unliquidated damages in cases not sounding in tort.” Id. § 1491(a)(1). Unless Congress consents to a cause of action against the United States, “there is no jurisdiction in the Court of Claims more than in any other court to entertain suits against the United States.” United States v. Sherwood, 312 U.S. 584, 587-88 (1941). In “construing a statute waiving the sovereign immunity of the United States, great care must be taken not to expand liability beyond that which was explicitly consented to by Congress.” Fid. Constr. Co. v. United States, 700 F.2d 1379, 1387 (Fed. Cir.), cert. denied, 464 U.S. 826 (1983). The scope of this court’s jurisdiction to entertain claims and grant relief depends upon the extent to which the United States has waived its sovereign immunity. King, 395 U.S. at 4. The Court of Federal Claims is a court of limited jurisdiction. Jentoft v. United States, 450 F.3d 1342, 1349 (Fed. Cir. 2006) (citing United States v. King, 395 U.S. 1, 3 (1969)). Petition of right. In old English law, a proceeding in chancery by which a subject may recover property in the possession of the king. See Petition de drolt. Petition of rights. A parliamentary declaration of the liberties of the people, assented to by King Charles I, in 1629. It is to be distinguished from the bill of rights, (1689), which has passed into a permanent constitutional statute. Petit jury. See Jury. Petltory action /ped;t(a)riy iekshan/. A droitural action; that is, one in which the plaintiff seeks to establish and enforce, by an appropriate legal proceeding, his right of property, or his title, to the subject-matter in dispute; as distinguished from a possessory action, where the right to the possession is the point in litigation, and not the mere right of property. In admiralty, suits to try title to property independent of questions concerning possession are referred to as petitory suits, which suits must be based on a claim of legal title; the assertion of a mere equitable interest is not sufficient. Hunt v. A Cargo of Petroleum Products Laden on Steam Tanker Hilda, D.C.Pa., 378 F.Supp. 701, 703. In Louisiana, an action brought by an alleged owner out of possession against one having possession to determine ownership, in which plaintiff must recover on strength of his own title, not on weakness of defendants title. Saucier v. Crichton, C.C.A.La., 147 F.2d 430, 433. Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Selective Draft Law Cases, 245 U.S. 366 (1918) The Selective Service Act of 1917 and, more generally, conscription do not violate the Thirteenth Amendments prohibition of involuntary servitude or the First Amendments protection of the freedom of thought. Dillon v. Gloss, 256 U.S. 368 (1921) Congress may set a deadline for the ratification of a new constitutional amendment if it wishes to do so. Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365 (1926) Zoning laws are not an unreasonable extension of local police power and do not have the character of arbitrary fiat.
Posted on: Sat, 24 Jan 2015 22:47:33 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015