Arthur Edward Sheehan v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, an Instrumentality of the Departments of the Army and of the Air Force

Fifth Circuit

Arthur Edward Sheehan v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, an Instrumentality of the Departments of the Army and of the Air Force

686 F.2d 262, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25510

Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit·Decided September 20, 1982·No. 79-1471·Published·Cited by 5 cases

Opinion

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before GOLDBERG, GARZA and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In our original decision in this case, we held that the district court had jurisdiction *263 of plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), and that the court had jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claims for nonmonetary relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in 5 U.S.C. § 702. Sheehan I, 619 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980). In reversing our judgment, the Supreme Court has held only that our theory of jurisdiction for monetary relief under § 1346(a)(2) was in error. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. v. Sheehan,- U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2118, 72 L.Ed.2d 520 (1982). The Court expressly noted that our finding of jurisdiction for nonmonetary relief was not before it. Id. 102 S.Ct. at 2121 n.3. Therefore, as defendant concedes, our judgment concerning plaintiff’s claims for nonmonetary relief should be reinstated and this case remanded for further proceedings on those claims.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED with respect to Sheehan’s claim for monetary relief, and REVERSED and REMANDED with respect to Sheehan’s claim for nonmonetary relief.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

ON REMAND FROM THE SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Before GOLDBERG, GARZA and REAVLEY, Circuit Judges.

PER CURIAM:

In our original decision in this case, we held that the district court had jurisdiction *263 of plaintiff’s claims for monetary relief under the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1346(a)(2), and that the court had jurisdiction of plaintiff’s claims for nonmonetary relief under 28 U.S.C. § 1331(a) and the waiver of sovereign immunity contained in 5 U.S.C. § 702. Sheehan I, 619 F.2d 1132 (5th Cir. 1980). In reversing our judgment, the Supreme Court has held only that our theory of jurisdiction for monetary relief under § 1346(a)(2) was in error. Army & Air Force Exch. Serv. v. Sheehan,- U.S. -, 102 S.Ct. 2118, 72 L.Ed.2d 520 (1982). The Court expressly noted that our finding of jurisdiction for nonmonetary relief was not before it. Id. 102 S.Ct. at 2121 n.3. Therefore, as defendant concedes, our judgment concerning plaintiff’s claims for nonmonetary relief should be reinstated and this case remanded for further proceedings on those claims.

The district court’s judgment is AFFIRMED with respect to Sheehan’s claim for monetary relief, and REVERSED and REMANDED with respect to Sheehan’s claim for nonmonetary relief.

Arthur Edward Sheehan v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, an Instrumentality of the Departments of the Army and of the Air Force, 686 F.2d 262, 1982 U.S. App. LEXIS 25510 (5th Cir. 1982).

Pincite

686 F.2d 262 (Arthur Edward Sheehan v. Army and Air Force Exchange Service, an Instrumentality of the Departments of the Army and of the Air Force) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related