45 Cited authorities

Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 280,127 times 369 Legal Analyses
Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer
510 U.S. 471 (1994) Cited 7,337 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding there can be no Bivens action against a federal agency
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit
507 U.S. 163 (1993) Cited 5,183 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities
Robbins v. Oklahoma
519 F.3d 1242 (10th Cir. 2008) Cited 6,071 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that collective allegations do not satisfy a plaintiff's "burden . . . to provide fair notice of the grounds for the claims made against each of the defendants"
United States v. Nordic Village, Inc.
503 U.S. 30 (1992) Cited 1,819 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that the existence of "plausible" interpretations that would not permit recovery "is enough to establish that a reading imposing monetary liability on the Government is not ‘unambiguous' and therefore should not be adopted"
United States v. Mitchell
445 U.S. 535 (1980) Cited 2,414 times
Holding that the United States does not have a specific fiduciary obligation to manage timber resources on allotted lands, held in trust for Indian-allotees
United States v. Testan
424 U.S. 392 (1976) Cited 2,231 times
Holding that Back Pay Act does not provide a remedy for misclassified federal employees
United States v. Sherwood
312 U.S. 584 (1941) Cited 3,493 times
Holding that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over claims that are not against United States
Hill v. Smithkline Beecham Corp.
393 F.3d 1111 (10th Cir. 2004) Cited 1,084 times
Holding that a district court's entry of judgment without expressly ruling on an objection is tantamount to a denial or rejection of those arguments when there is no basis to conclude the court did not consider the objections
Oxendine v. Kaplan
241 F.3d 1272 (10th Cir. 2001) Cited 881 times
Holding that the failure to refer an inmate to a specialist after he showed signs of necrosis following a surgical procedure posed an obvious health risk
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 361,853 times 961 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 164,069 times 197 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 73,616 times 129 Legal Analyses
Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time
Section 1346 - United States as defendant
28 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 24,641 times 23 Legal Analyses
Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"
Section 2671 - Definitions
28 U.S.C. § 2671 Cited 9,658 times 6 Legal Analyses
Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "
Section 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence
28 U.S.C. § 2675 Cited 7,315 times 1 Legal Analyses
Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement
Section 2401 - Time for commencing action against United States
28 U.S.C. § 2401 Cited 6,368 times 58 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 4,577 times 2 Legal Analyses
Specifying scope of United States' liability
Section 233 - Civil actions or proceedings against commissioned officers or employees
42 U.S.C. § 233 Cited 1,205 times 3 Legal Analyses
Providing a remedy against the United States for certain injuries caused by employees of the Public Health Service, and stating that "[t]he time limit for filing a claim under this subsection ... shall be tolled during the pendency of a [n] [administrative] request for benefits," § 233(p)
Section 19.1 - Affidavit of consultation with qualified expert - Extension - Exemption
Okla. Stat. tit. 12 § 19.1 Cited 18 times
A. 1. In any civil action for negligence wherein the plaintiff shall be required to present the testimony of an expert witness to establish breach of the relevant standard of care and that such breach of duty resulted in harm to the plaintiff, except as provided in subsection B of this section, the plaintiff shall attach to the petition an affidavit attesting that: a. the plaintiff has consulted and reviewed the facts of the claim with a qualified expert, b. the plaintiff has obtained a written opinion

Doerfert et al v. Plowman et al

45 Cited authorities

Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

Holding there can be no Bivens action against a federal agency

Holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities

Holding that collective allegations do not satisfy a plaintiff's "burden . . . to provide fair notice of the grounds for the claims made against each of the defendants"

Holding that the existence of "plausible" interpretations that would not permit recovery "is enough to establish that a reading imposing monetary liability on the Government is not ‘unambiguous' and therefore should not be adopted"

Holding that the United States does not have a specific fiduciary obligation to manage timber resources on allotted lands, held in trust for Indian-allotees

Holding that Back Pay Act does not provide a remedy for misclassified federal employees

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

Holding that a district court's entry of judgment without expressly ruling on an objection is tantamount to a denial or rejection of those arguments when there is no basis to conclude the court did not consider the objections

Holding that the failure to refer an inmate to a specialist after he showed signs of necrosis following a surgical procedure posed an obvious health risk

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

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

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

Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement

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

Providing a remedy against the United States for certain injuries caused by employees of the Public Health Service, and stating that "[t]he time limit for filing a claim under this subsection ... shall be tolled during the pendency of a [n] [administrative] request for benefits," § 233(p)