context: Statutes that provide rewards for informants or whistleblowers are plainly inapposite to Mr. Hicks and the facts of his ease. Nor is there any basis on which to conclude plaintiff acted as a confidential informant pursuant to any express or implied agreement with the government.
citation_a.signal: see
citation_a.identifier: 16 F.3d 1204, 1210
citation_a.parenthetical: "Absent privity [of contract] between [plaintiff] and the government, there is no case."
citation_a.sentence: See Katz v. Cisneros, 16 F.3d 1204, 1210 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“Absent privity [of contract] between [plaintiff] and the government, there is no case.”); San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 877 F.2d 957, 959 (Fed.Cir.1989) (explaining that “[t]o recover for breach of contract, [plaintiff] must allege ... (1) a valid contract between the parties, (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the contract, (3) breach of that duty, and (4) damages caused by the breach”); contra Vargas v. United States, 114 Fed.Cl. 226, 232-36 (2014) (finding jurisdiction existed over claim for breach of confidential informant agreement).
citation_b.signal: contra
citation_b.identifier: 114 Fed.Cl. 226, 232-36
citation_b.parenthetical: finding jurisdiction existed over claim for breach of confidential informant agreement
citation_b.sentence: See Katz v. Cisneros, 16 F.3d 1204, 1210 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“Absent privity [of contract] between [plaintiff] and the government, there is no case.”); San Carlos Irrigation & Drainage Dist. v. United States, 877 F.2d 957, 959 (Fed.Cir.1989) (explaining that “[t]o recover for breach of contract, [plaintiff] must allege ... (1) a valid contract between the parties, (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the contract, (3) breach of that duty, and (4) damages caused by the breach”); contra Vargas v. United States, 114 Fed.Cl. 226, 232-36 (2014) (finding jurisdiction existed over claim for breach of confidential informant agreement).