58 Cited authorities

Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer
510 U.S. 471 (1994) Cited 7,062 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a Bivens claim does not lie against federal agencies because, if damages claims were permitted against federal agencies, "there would be no reason for aggrieved parties to bring damages actions against individual officers" and thus "the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost"
McNeil v. United States
508 U.S. 106 (1993) Cited 6,758 times
Holding that an action must be dismissed when statutory exhaustion requirement was not met until after action was filed
United States v. Kubrick
444 U.S. 111 (1979) Cited 2,595 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that claim under Federal Tort Claims Act accrued when plaintiff possessed "critical facts that he has been hurt and who has inflicted the injury," and rejecting argument that "plaintiff's ignorance of his legal rights" deferred accrual
Richards v. United States
369 U.S. 1 (1962) Cited 1,452 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that in FTCA cases "the issue of the applicable law is controlled by a formal expression of the will of Congress"
United States v. Sherwood
312 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 3,410 times
Holding that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over claims that are not against United States
Osborn v. U.S.
918 F.2d 724 (8th Cir. 1990) Cited 1,605 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that an injured child's FTCA claim could not have accrued when the child's doctors "had not yet reached a conclusion" as to the cause of the child's injury
Valentin v. Hospital Bella Vista
254 F.3d 358 (1st Cir. 2001) Cited 703 times
Holding that an appeal of a Rule 12(b) ruling that resolves a factual challenge must be reviewed with a deferential "clearly-erroneous" standard
Augustine v. United States
704 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 888 times
Holding that a court may address jurisdictional and substantive issues concurrently if they are "intertwined"
Murphy v. U.S.
45 F.3d 520 (1st Cir. 1995) Cited 565 times
Holding that a plaintiff may not rely on unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law in responding to a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (citing Washington Legal Found. v. Massachusetts Bar Found., 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir. 1993))
McCulloch v. Velez
364 F.3d 1 (1st Cir. 2004) Cited 356 times
Holding that an assignment between a corporation and its sole shareholder triggers a presumption of impropriety
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 348,310 times 930 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 2671 - Definitions
28 U.S.C. § 2671 Cited 9,409 times 6 Legal Analyses
Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "
Section 2401 - Time for commencing action against United States
28 U.S.C. § 2401 Cited 6,222 times 26 Legal Analyses
Providing that a tort claim against the United States must be presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues
Section 2674 - Liability of United States
28 U.S.C. § 2674 Cited 4,453 times 2 Legal Analyses
Specifying scope of United States' liability
Section 14.2 - Administrative claim; when presented
28 C.F.R. § 14.2 Cited 1,204 times
Setting forth the procedures for presenting a claim under the FTCA

Barlow et al v. United States of America

58 Cited authorities

Holding a Bivens claim does not lie against federal agencies because, if damages claims were permitted against federal agencies, "there would be no reason for aggrieved parties to bring damages actions against individual officers" and thus "the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost"

Holding that an action must be dismissed when statutory exhaustion requirement was not met until after action was filed

Holding that claim under Federal Tort Claims Act accrued when plaintiff possessed "critical facts that he has been hurt and who has inflicted the injury," and rejecting argument that "plaintiff's ignorance of his legal rights" deferred accrual

Holding that in FTCA cases "the issue of the applicable law is controlled by a formal expression of the will of Congress"

Holding that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over claims that are not against United States

Holding that an injured child's FTCA claim could not have accrued when the child's doctors "had not yet reached a conclusion" as to the cause of the child's injury

Holding that an appeal of a Rule 12(b) ruling that resolves a factual challenge must be reviewed with a deferential "clearly-erroneous" standard

Holding that a court may address jurisdictional and substantive issues concurrently if they are "intertwined"

Holding that a plaintiff may not rely on unsupported conclusions or interpretations of law in responding to a motion to dismiss under Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b) (citing Washington Legal Found. v. Massachusetts Bar Found., 993 F.2d 962, 971 (1st Cir. 1993))

Holding that an assignment between a corporation and its sole shareholder triggers a presumption of impropriety

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "

Providing that a tort claim against the United States must be presented to the appropriate federal agency within two years after the claim accrues

Specifying scope of United States' liability

Setting forth the procedures for presenting a claim under the FTCA