Citation network
Opm Vs. Richmond
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 11, 1990
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
-
U.S. 414 (1990) U.S. Supreme Court OPM v. RichmondSearch
-
U.S. 414 (1990) Office of Personnel Management v. RichmondSearch
-
permitted by law. Pp. 496 U. S. 419 -434. (a) Although dicta in some recent cases -- e.g., Montana v. KennedySearch
-
where the Government might be estopped. Heckler v. CommunitySearch
-
we have recognized that equitable estoppel will not lie against the Government as against private litigants. In Lee v. MunroeSearch
-
the Secretary of War where there was no statutory authority for the issuance of the bills. In Utah Power & Light Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
The principles of these and many other cases were reiterated in Federal Crop Insurance Corporation v. MerrillSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
could be appropriate. The genesis of this idea appears to be an observation found at the end of our opinion in Montana v. KennedySearch
-
might give rise to estoppel against the Government. See INS v. HibiSearch
-
misconduct' on the part of the Government might estop it from denying citizenship was left open in Montana v. KennedySearch
-
Heckler v. CommunitySearch
-
United States v. MitchellSearch
-
Cincinnati Soap Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 301 U. S. 308 , 301 U. S. 321 (1937) (citing Reeside v. WalkerSearch
-
Knote v. UnitedSearch
-
of the equitable doctrine of estoppel cannot grant respondent a money remedy that Congress has not authorized. See INS v. PangilinanSearch
-
Clause, for reasons that are apparent. Given the strict rule against estoppel applied as early as 1813 in Lee v. MunroeSearch
-
Cranch 366 (1813), claims of estoppel could be dismissed on that ground without more. In our cases following Montana v. KennedySearch
-
in other contexts, see id. Page 496 U. S. 427 at 467 U. S. 60 (suggesting that United States v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Stat. 3794. One example is of particular relevance. In Schweiker v. HansenSearch
-
This principle is set forth in our leading case on jurisdiction over claims against the Government, United States v. TestanSearch
-
for suits against the Government must be strictly construed in its favor, see, e.g., Library of Congress v. ShawSearch
-
McMahon v. UnitedSearch
-
Hansen v. HarrisSearch
-
F.2d 942, 954 (CA2 1980) (Friendly, J., dissenting), rev'd sub nom. Schweiker v. HansenSearch
-
Ante at 496 U. S. 423 . In my view, the case principally relied on by respondent, United States v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Page 496 U. S. 435 The Executive Branch does not have the dispensing power on its own, See Kendall v. UnitedSearch
-
may never fall even if they violate a command of the Constitution such as the Just Compensation Clause, cf. Jacobs v. UnitedSearch
-
or if they encroach on the powers reserved to another branch of the Federal Government. Although Knote v. UnitedSearch
-
equities favoring respondent's position, but I am persuaded that unless the 5-to-4 decision in Federal Crop Ins. Corp. v. MerrillSearch
-
by Congress or this Court, this kind of maladministration must be tolerated. I think the case is closer to Schweiker v. HansenSearch
-
U. S. 785 (1981), and Heckler v. CommunitySearch
-
Health Services of Crawford County, Inc., 467 U. S. 51 (1984), than to Moser v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 341 U. S. 41 (1951), and United States v. PennsylvaniaSearch
-
Ante at 496 U. S. 424 (quoting Cincinnati Soap Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
the Government itself suggests that the Court was engaging in just such a brand of statutory interpretation in Moser v. UnitedSearch
-
to authorize equitable exceptions though the plain language of the statute suggested a contrary result. In Zipes v. TransSearch
-
Id. at 455 U. S. 393 (footnote omitted). See also e.g., Hallstrom v. TillamookSearch
-
County, 493 U. S. 20 , 493 U. S. 27 (1989). Similarly, in Crown, Cork & Seal Co. v. ParkerSearch
-
in appropriate circumstances, notwithstanding that the statute on its face did not allow exceptions. See also Burnett v. NewSearch
-
Hallstrom, supra, 493 U.S. at 493 U. S. 27 -28 (quoting Johnson v. RailwaySearch
-
benefits by his reliance on misinformation from the responsible federal authorities. Cf. Baldwin County Welcome Center v. BrownSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial