Cases pin-citing Bowen · Go Syfert
Search » Famous passages » Cases pin-citing Bowen

Cases pin-citing Bowen

Bowen v. Massachusetts  ·  1988  ·  113 pinpoint citations from 47 cases, 38 distinct passages.

Reyes Quiroz v. Feldman  ·  2025-03-28  ·  E.D. California  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing 18 procedures for review of agency action.”
Bethney Lovo v. Loren Miller  ·  2024-07-03  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“[I]t is common ground that if review is proper under the APA, the District Court ha[s] jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .”
Ulloa Lujan v. U.S. Department of Education  ·  2023-03-24  ·  W.D. Texas  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“The fact that the mandate is one for the payment of money must not be confused with the question whether such payment . . . is a payment of money as damages or as specific relief.”
The Boeing Company v. United States  ·  2022-09-21  ·  Federal Claims  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“The Claims Court does not have the general equitable powers of a district court to grant prospective relief.”
Vivint, Inc. v. Alejandro Mayorkas  ·  2022-07-05  ·  D. Utah  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“[I]f review is proper under the APA, the District Court has jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .”
Dowling v. United States Department of Health and Human Services  ·  2019-08-13  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“[S]uits under the Tucker Act in the Claims Court offer precisely the sort of ‘special and adequate review procedures’ that § 704 requires to direct litigation away from the district courts.”
Fry v. Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services (CMS)  ·  2019-08-13  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“[S]uits under the Tucker Act in the Claims Court offer precisely the sort of ‘special and adequate review procedures’ that § 704 requires to direct litigation away from the district courts.”
Tugaw Ranches, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior  ·  2019-02-25  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
"[I]t is undisputed" that the APA "was intended to broaden the avenues for judicial review of agency action by eliminating the defense of sovereign immunity ..."
Vetcher v. Sessions  ·  2018-06-11  ·  D.C. Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
"[M]oney damages cannot adequately compensate plaintiffs for ... the deprivation of their constitutional rights."
Vetcher v. Sessions  ·  2018-06-11  ·  District of Columbia  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“[M]oney damages cannot adequately compensate plaintiffs for . . . the deprivation of their constitutional rights.”
Fryberger v. Univ. of Ark.  ·  2018-05-02  ·  Eighth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
"damages" are a "remedy at law"
McKoy v. Spencer  ·  2017-09-21  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“insofar as the complaints sought declaratory *33 and injunctive relief, they were certainly not actions for money damages”
Andrus v. United States Department of Energy  ·  2016-08-08  ·  D. Idaho  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“primary thrust of § 704 was to codify the exhaustion requirement...”
Johnson v. United States  ·  2016-07-26  ·  Federal Claims  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“The Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction over .,. claims for equitable relief”
Simmons v. United States  ·  2016-06-27  ·  Federal Claims  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“The Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction over ... claims for equitable re lief.”
Diversified Group Incorporated v. United States  ·  2015-09-29  ·  Federal Claims  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“The Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction over . . . claims for equitable relief.”
Sisseton Wahpeton Oyate of the Lake Traverse Reservation v. Jewell  ·  2015-09-17  ·  District of Columbia  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“Our cases have long recognized the distinction .between an action at law for damages ... and an equitable action for specific relief.... The fact that a judicial remedy may require one party to pay money to another is not a sufficient reason to characterize the relief as money (damages.”
Diversified Group Incorporated v. United States  ·  2015-08-26  ·  Federal Claims  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“The Tucker Act does not provide independent jurisdiction over . . . claims for equitable relief.”
Harris v. Department of Homeland Security  ·  2014-05-08  ·  S.D. Florida  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“When Congress enacted the APA to provide a general authorization for review of agency action in the district courts, it did not intend that general grant of jurisdiction to duplicate the previously established special statutory procedures relating to specific agencies.”
Duarte Nursery, Inc. v. United States Army Corps of Engineers  ·  2014-04-23  ·  E.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“the 1976 amendment to § 702 was intended to broaden the avenues for judicial review of agency action by eliminating the defense of sovereign immunity in cases covered by the amendment”
Beer v. United States  ·  2012-02-17  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
"The fact that a judicial remedy may require one party to pay money to another is not a sufficient reason to characterize the relief as `money damages.'"
Ray v. Federal Bureau of Prisons  ·  2011-09-12  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action.”
Conservation Force v. Salazar  ·  2010-06-07  ·  District of Columbia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
"Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action."
Lee v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services  ·  2010-01-25  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“[I]t is common ground that if review is proper under the APA, the District Court ha[s] jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .”
Lion Raisins, Inc. v. United States Department of Agriculture  ·  2009-07-13  ·  E.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action.”
Sharkey v. Quarantillo  ·  2008-09-03  ·  Second Circuit  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“[I]t is common ground that if review is proper under the APA, the District Court ha[s] jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331 .”
Sharkey v. Quarantillo  ·  2008-09-03  ·  Second Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“[I]t is common ground that if review is proper under the APA, the District Court ha[s] jurisdiction under 28 USC § 1331 .”
Sierra Club v. Johnson  ·  2008-07-23  ·  N.D. California  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action”
COOS COUNTY BD. OF COUNTY COM'RS v. Kempthorne  ·  2008-06-26  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
"Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action."
Coos County Board of County Commissioners v. Kempthorne  ·  2008-06-25  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action.”
Antonishin v. Keisler  ·  2007-09-20  ·  N.D. Illinois  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
“Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action.”
Florida Home Builders Ass'n v. Norton  ·  2007-07-10  ·  M.D. Florida  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“The Administrative Procedure Act provides specifically not only for review of ‘[ajgency action made reviewable by statute’ but also for review of ‘final agency action for which there is no other adequate remedy in a court.’ ”
Robbins v. United States Bureau of Land Management  ·  2006-02-23  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“[I]t is undisputed that the 1976 amendment to § 702 was intended to broaden the avenues for judicial review of agency action by eliminating the defense of sovereign immunity in cases covered by the amendment.”
United States v. Torres (In Re Torres)  ·  2005-12-16  ·  First Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“There is no evidence that any legislator in 1976 understood the words ‘money damages’ to have any meaning other than the ordinary understanding of the term as used in the common law for centuries.”
Dennis R. Walsh v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs  ·  2005-03-10  ·  Seventh Circuit  ·  2 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action.... § 704 ‘does not provide additional judicial remedies in situations where the Congress has provided special and adequate review procedures.’ ”
Star Fruits v. United States  ·  2005-01-03  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
"It seems perfectly clear that, as `the reviewing court,' the District Court had the authority to `hold unlawful and set aside agency action' that it found to be `not in accordance with law.'"
Star Fruits s.n.c. v. United States  ·  2005-01-03  ·  Federal Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“It seems perfectly clear that, as ‘the reviewing court,’ the District Court had the authority to ‘hold unlawful and set aside agency action’ that it found to be ‘not in accordance with law.’ ”
Rashid v. United States  ·  2001-10-19  ·  S.D. West Virginia  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“If review is proper under the APA, the district court ha[s] jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1331 .”
Hayes v. Whitman  ·  2001-08-29  ·  Tenth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“Congress did not intend the general grant of review in the APA to duplicate existing procedures for review of agency action.”
Cooley v. United States  ·  2000-04-28  ·  Federal Claims  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“[T]he Court of Claims has no power to grant equitable relief.’”
Stabile v. Southern Connecticut Hospital Systems, No. 326120 (Oct. 31, 1996)  ·  1996-10-31  ·  Connecticut Superior Court  ·  pin 487 U.S. at 879
"The touchstone here, of course, is whether Congress intended a cause of action that it did not expressly provide."
Randall v. United States  ·  1996-09-10  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“[I]t is undisputed that the 1976 amendment to [5 U.S.C.] § 702 was intended to broaden the avenues for judicial review of agency action by eliminating the defense of sovereign immunity in eases covered by the amendment_”
Randall v. United States  ·  1996-09-10  ·  Fourth Circuit  ·  6 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
"[I]t is undisputed that the 1976 amendment to [5 U.S.C.] § 702 was intended to broaden the avenues for judicial review of agency action by eliminating the defense of sovereign immunity in cases covered by the amendment...."
Aerolineas Argentinas v. United States  ·  1994-03-24  ·  Federal Claims  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“Statutes that have been ’interpreted as mandating compensation by the Federal government for the damages sustained’ generally are provisions such as the Back Pay Act[, which] ... attempt to compensate a particular class of persons for past injuries or labors.”
North Star Alaska, North Star Borough, Intervenor-Appellee v. United States  ·  1994-01-18  ·  Ninth Circuit  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“the doubtful and limited relief available in the Claims Court is not an adequate substitute for review in the District Court”
Branch v. Federal Deposit Insurance  ·  1993-06-22  ·  D. Massachusetts  ·  3 pin-cites  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“[t]he fact that a judicial remedy may require one party to pay money to another is not a sufficient reason to characterize the relief as “money damages”
Cherry Lane Fashion Group, Inc. v. United States  ·  1989-04-06  ·  Court of International Trade  ·  pin 101 L. Ed. 2d at 749
“When Congress enacted the APA to provide a general authorization for review of agency action in the district courts, it did not intend that general grant of jurisdiction to duplicate the previously established special statutory procedures relating to specific agencies”
Page 1 of 3   Next →