U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, 1954

Clay v. United States

U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Decided March 15, 1954 · Clark, Bazelon, Fahy

210 F.2d 686 (Federal Reporter, Second Series)

Counsel

Mr. Byron N. Scott, Washington, D. C., for appellant., Mr. E. Riley Casey, Asst. U. S. Atty.,with whom Messrs. Leo A. Rover, U. S. Atty., and William J. Peck, Asst. U. S. Atty., were on the brief, for appellees. Messrs. Charles M. Irelan, U. S. Atty., and Joseph M. Howard, William E. Kirk, Jr., and William R. Glendon, Asst. U. S. Attys., at the time the record was filed, also entered appearances for appellees.

Cases that cite this one

15 later published cases cite this decision.

Hammer v. United States (District Court, District of Columbia 2019)
John E. Wiren v. Donald Eide, as District Director of the Bureau of Customs (9th Cir. 1976)
Louis Sager Hunsucker, Jr. v. Robert L. Phinney, District Director of Internal Revenue (5th Cir. 1974)
Joseph Construction Co. v. Veterans Administration (District Court, N.D. Illinois 1984)
Tempo Trucking and Transfer Corp. v. Dickson (District Court, E.D. New York 1975)
Philip B. Lindy T/a Fountain View Apts., a Pennsylvania Limited Partnership v. James Lynn, Secretary of Housing and Urban Development (3d Cir. 1974)
Boccardo v. United States (United States District Court for the Northern District of California 1972)
John P. Casarino v. United States of America, Secretary of Defense and Secretary of the Air Force, Defendants-Respondents (2d Cir. 1970)
John P. King v. The United States (Court of Claims 1968)
Klamath & Modoc Tribes v. United States (Court of Claims 1966)
C. M. Wells v. United States (9th Cir. 1960)
Edith Blanc v. United States (2d Cir. 1957)
Blanc v. United States (District Court, E.D. New York 1956)
Thibodo v. United States (United States District Court for the Southern District of California 1955)
Di Battista v. Swing (District Court, D. Maryland 1955)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion

PER CURIAM.

William C. Clay, the appellant, brought suit in the District Court against the United States and certain named Government officials, 1 seeking a judgment declaring void an assignment he had made to the United States of certain Letters Patent. On defendants’ motion the court dismissed the complaint, holding that it was without jurisdiction of .the subject matter and that the complaint did not state a claim upon which relief could be granted. A memorandum opinion filed by the court pointed out that in a suit against the United States under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a) (2), this Act being the only basis relied upon to support jurisdiction, the District Court has jurisdiction only of a claim for damages not exceeding $10,000. The court said that the jurisdiction does not include a suit, such as this, solely for specific relief of an equitable character. 2 We agree. The Tucker Act permits a suit against the United States only for a money judgment. Any equitable relief which might be granted in such a suit is in aid of the claim for money judgment. United States v. Jones, 131 U.S. 1, 9 S.Ct. 669, 33 L.Ed. 90; Lynn v. United States, 5 Cir., 110 F.2d 586.

Affirmed.

. It is not questioned that the action is one against the United States.

. The court also held that the allegations of the complaint respecting duress alleged to have been exerted in the obtaining of the assignment did not state a cause of action, and, further, that the statute of limitations had run.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.