14 Cited authorities

United States v. Dalm
494 U.S. 596 (1990) Cited 1,035 times
Holding that 26 U.S.C. § 6511, which, when read with 26 U.S.C. § 7422, includes “may not be maintained” language, is jurisdictional
Dalehite v. United States
346 U.S. 15 (1953) Cited 1,514 times
Holding that where discretionary function exception of § 2680 applied, district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over cause of action
Molzof v. United States
502 U.S. 301 (1992) Cited 380 times
Holding that § "2674 bars the recovery only of what are legally considered ‘punitive damages’ under traditional common-law principles"
Lafromboise v. Leavitt
439 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2006) Cited 31 times
Affirming dismissal for failure to file expert affidavit; applying North Dakota law
Sledge v. U.S.
723 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2010) Cited 24 times
Determining that plaintiff's allegations of assault in a “closely supervised and tightly regulated prison environment” warranted discovery into whether “discretionary decisions of the type not grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime” were made by BOP employees
Mello v. Giliberto
73 S.W.3d 669 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002) Cited 29 times
In Mello v. Giliberto, 73 S.W.3d 669 (Mo.App. 2002), the plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing her medical malpractice claims for failure to file a health care affidavit.
White v. Tariq
299 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009) Cited 19 times
Holding that section 538.225 “is clear and unambiguous” that if “a statutorily adequate health care affidavit has not been timely filed, the trial court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice”
SSM Health Care St. Louis v. Schneider
229 S.W.3d 279 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007) Cited 19 times
Holding that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning [of § 538.225 ] is that if ... a statutorily adequate health care affidavit has not been timely filed, the trial court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice”
Mackovich v. U.S.
630 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 2011) Cited 13 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding the filing of an amended complaint in which the plaintiff abandoned his initial, unexhausted medical malpractice claim and asserted only a new exhausted premises liability claim constituted the commencement of an entirely new action
J.K.M. v. Dempsey
317 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010) Cited 12 times
Acknowledging that analysis in Budding was based in part on understanding that legislature “intended to impose specific limitations on the traditional tort causes of action available against a health care provider,” and that statute limited such causes of action by requiring that “cause of action be dependent upon an affidavit ... of failure to exercise reasonable care” (quoting Budding, 19 S.W.3d at 680 )
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 344,767 times 920 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Eikenbary v. USA

14 Cited authorities

Holding that 26 U.S.C. § 6511, which, when read with 26 U.S.C. § 7422, includes “may not be maintained” language, is jurisdictional

Holding that where discretionary function exception of § 2680 applied, district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over cause of action

Holding that § "2674 bars the recovery only of what are legally considered ‘punitive damages’ under traditional common-law principles"

Affirming dismissal for failure to file expert affidavit; applying North Dakota law

Determining that plaintiff's allegations of assault in a “closely supervised and tightly regulated prison environment” warranted discovery into whether “discretionary decisions of the type not grounded in the policy of the regulatory regime” were made by BOP employees

In Mello v. Giliberto, 73 S.W.3d 669 (Mo.App. 2002), the plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment dismissing her medical malpractice claims for failure to file a health care affidavit.

Holding that section 538.225 “is clear and unambiguous” that if “a statutorily adequate health care affidavit has not been timely filed, the trial court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice”

Holding that “[t]he plain and ordinary meaning [of § 538.225 ] is that if ... a statutorily adequate health care affidavit has not been timely filed, the trial court must dismiss the complaint without prejudice”

Holding the filing of an amended complaint in which the plaintiff abandoned his initial, unexhausted medical malpractice claim and asserted only a new exhausted premises liability claim constituted the commencement of an entirely new action

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