14 Cited authorities

  1. United States v. Dalm

    494 U.S. 596 (1990)   Cited 948 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
  2. Dalehite v. United States

    346 U.S. 15 (1953)   Cited 1,442 times
    Holding that where discretionary function exception of § 2680 applied, district court lacked subject matter jurisdiction over cause of action
  3. Molzof v. United States

    502 U.S. 301 (1992)   Cited 312 times
    Holding that the Federal Tort Claims Act's use of "punitive damages" unambiguously adopted the established legal meaning of the phrase because " ‘[p]unitive damages’ is a legal term of art that has a widely accepted common-law meaning.... Although the precise nature and use of punitive damages may have evolved over time, and the size and frequency of such awards may have increased, this Court's decisions make clear that the concept of ‘punitive damages’ has a long pedigree in the law."
  4. Mello v. Giliberto

    73 S.W.3d 669 (Mo. Ct. App. 2002)   Cited 28 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.
  5. White v. Tariq

    299 S.W.3d 1 (Mo. Ct. App. 2009)   Cited 18 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”
  6. Lafromboise v. Leavitt

    439 F.3d 792 (8th Cir. 2006)   Cited 21 times
    Affirming dismissal for failure to file expert affidavit; applying North Dakota law
  7. Sledge v. U.S.

    723 F. Supp. 2d 87 (D.D.C. 2010)   Cited 15 times
    Determining that plaintiff's allegations of an assault in a "closely supervised and tightly regulated prison environment" warranted discovery to assess BOP employees' conduct
  8. SSM Health Care St. Louis v. Schneider

    229 S.W.3d 279 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007)   Cited 18 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”
  9. Mackovich v. U.S.

    630 F.3d 1134 (8th Cir. 2011)   Cited 11 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
  10. J.K.M. v. Dempsey

    317 S.W.3d 621 (Mo. Ct. App. 2010)   Cited 10 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 )
  11. 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 269,826 times   783 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss