United States v. Testan
- Decided
- May 3, 1976
- Docket
- 74-753
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,918 timesSuperseded by statute (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: superseded by statute (not yet verified) · Fletcher v. United States
What later courts said
- ruling that the Tucker Act does not create substantive rights, but confers jurisdiction where such rights already exist — Hansen v. United States (2005)
- recognizing that our jurisdiction requires a law that provides “a substantive right to recover money damages from the United States” — Kent v. United States (2020)
- holding that 28 U.S.C. § 1491 [the Tucker Act] is limited to claims for monetary compensation — Cooley v. United States (2000)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Mr. Justice Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
This is a suit for reclassification of federal civil service positions and for backpay. It presents a substantial issue concerning the jurisdiction of the Court of Claims and the relief available in that tribunal.
I
Statutes cited
- 5 U.S.C. § 5101
- 28 U.S.C. § 1491
- 28 U.S.C. § 2201
- 5 U.S.C. § 5596
- 37 U.S.C. § 202
- 5 U.S.C. § 5110
- 5 U.S.C. § 5112
- 28 U.S.C. § 1361
- 5 U.S.C. § 7501
- 28 U.S.C. § 1494
And 1 more section cited in the full opinion.
Cite this
United States v. Testan, 424 U.S. 392 (1976)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.