Skip to content
Back to judgment

Citation network

United States Vs. Testan

Cites for this judgment

  • US Supreme Court
  • Mar 02, 1976

Citation network · 7-day free trial

Brief every cited case in minutes

Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.

  • 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
  • Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
  • Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
  • Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases

No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account

66 entries 4 linked 62 unlinked
Show
  1. Richardson Vs. Morris US Supreme Court · Jan 15, 1973
  2. United States Vs. Sherwood US Supreme Court · Mar 31, 1941
  3. United States Vs. Mclean US Supreme Court · Jan 01, 1877
  4. United States Vs. Wickersham US Supreme Court · Apr 02, 1906
  5. U.S. 392 (1976) U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Testan
    Search
  6. U.S. 392 (1976) United States v. Testan
    Search
  7. had occasion to examine the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims under this statutory formulation. In United States v. King
    Search
  8. not grant the Court of Claims authority to issue declaratory judgments. Cited in support of all this were Glidden Co. v. Zdanok
    Search
  9. United States v. Jones
    Search
  10. and United States v. Alire
    Search
  11. Wall. 573, 73 U. S. 575 (1868). See Lee v. Thornton
    Search
  12. recognized that the Act merely confers jurisdiction upon it whenever the substantive right exists. Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United
    Search
  13. United States v. King
    Search
  14. Soriano v. United
    Search
  15. Eastport S.S. Corp. v. United
    Search
  16. Mosca v. United
    Search
  17. Amendment cases are tied to the language, purpose, and self-executing aspects of that constitutional provision, Jacobs v. United
    Search
  18. the employee is entitled to the emoluments of his position until he has been legally disqualified. United States v. Wickersham
    Search
  19. rule is that one is not entitled to the benefit of a position until he has been duly appointed to it. United States v. McLean
    Search
  20. Ganse v. United
    Search
  21. we see no suggestion in it or in its legislative history that Congress intended to alter it. The case of Selman v. United
    Search
  22. on the one hand, and retroactive reclassification resulting in money damages, on the other. See Edelman v. Jordan
    Search
  23. for the respondents for whatever backpay they lost during the period of their wrongful classifications. See Chambers v. United
    Search
  24. Page 424 U. S. 405 Respondents cite Allison v. United
    Search
  25. States, 196 Ct.Cl. 263, 451 F.2d 1035 (1971), and Pettit v. United
    Search
  26. damages in an Executive Order, and to that extent might be distinguishable from the instant case. But cf. Ogletree v. McNamara
    Search
  27. Gnotta v. United
    Search
  28. Manhattan-Bronx Postal Union v. Gronouski
    Search
  29. analysis is now rejected, the analysis of Allison and Pettit is necessarily rejected. See also Chambers v. United
    Search
  30. e) (1975). So has the Court of Claims. See Desmond v. United
    Search
  31. discretion, courts refused to intervene where an employee claimed that he had been wrongfully discharged. Compare Keim v. United
    Search
  32. States, 177 U. S. 290 , 177 U. S. 293 -296 (1900), with United States v. Wickersham
    Search
  33. U. S. 390 (1906). See Sampson v. Murray
    Search
  34. was invariably denied where the claim was that the employee had been denied a promotion on improper grounds. See Keim v. United
    Search
  35. the Court of Claims cases whose reasoning is directly in question here. Neither case supports the proposition. Walker v. Kleindienst
    Search
  36. by respondents), addressed the issue of the retroactivity of the Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972. Ainsworth v. United
    Search
  37. is not inconsistent, as to these issues, with other recent cases resolved by divided votes in that court. See Chambers v. United
    Search
  38. Allison v. United
    Search
  39. Small v. United
    Search
  40. Pettit v. United
    Search
  41. States, 203 Ct.Cl. 207, 488 F.2d 1026 (1973). But see Applegate v. United
    Search
  42. Roseman v. United
    Search
  43. Kaeserman v. United
    Search
  44. Barnum v. United
    Search
  45. will be able to obtain reclassification for the future through the mandamus action they instituted in 1971. See Testan v. Hampton
    Search
  46. ed., Supp. IV). The nature of that explicit waiver of sovereign immunity is presently before the Court. See Brown v. General
    Search
  47. U.S. Supreme Court United States v. Testan
    Search
  48. In United States v. King
    Search
  49. See Lee v. Thornton
    Search
  50. Jacobs v. United
    Search

AI Briefs · Semantic Search · Save & annotate judgments

Start your 7-day free trial