42 Cited authorities

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.
477 U.S. 242 (1986) Cited 237,946 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"
Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 217,766 times 40 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Matsushita Elec. Indus. Co. v. Zenith Radio
475 U.S. 574 (1986) Cited 113,875 times 38 Legal Analyses
Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them
McNeil v. United States
508 U.S. 106 (1993) Cited 6,819 times
Holding that an action must be dismissed when statutory exhaustion requirement was not met until after action was filed
United States v. Kwai Fun Wong
575 U.S. 402 (2015) Cited 717 times 6 Legal Analyses
Holding that the time limits of 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) may be equitably tolled
United States v. Kubrick
444 U.S. 111 (1979) Cited 2,600 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
Rotella v. Wood
528 U.S. 549 (2000) Cited 923 times 4 Legal Analyses
Holding discovery rule inapplicable to § 2462 limitations period
United States v. Testan
424 U.S. 392 (1976) Cited 2,208 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 3,420 times
Holding that the Claims Court lacked jurisdiction over claims that are not against United States
Laningham v. U.S. Navy
813 F.2d 1236 (D.C. Cir. 1987) Cited 1,158 times
Finding that Navy did not act intentionally or willfully under § 552a(g) because it was "warranted [in its] belief that its actions were lawful [under the Privacy Act]"
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 331,402 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 1346 - United States as defendant
28 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 24,222 times 23 Legal Analyses
Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"
Rule 1 - Scope and Purpose
Fed. R. Civ. P. 1 Cited 15,276 times 49 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"
Section 2671 - Definitions
28 U.S.C. § 2671 Cited 9,474 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 7,154 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 6,250 times 52 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 511 - Decisions of the Secretary; finality
38 U.S.C. § 511 Cited 609 times
Providing that decisions related to the provision of a veteran's benefits "may not be reviewed by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise."

Gable v. United States of America

42 Cited authorities

Holding that summary judgment is not appropriate if "the dispute about a material fact is ‘genuine,’ that is, if the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party"

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that, on summary judgment, antitrust plaintiffs "must show that the inference of conspiracy is reasonable in light of the competing inferences of independent action or collusive action that could not have harmed" them

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

Holding that the time limits of 28 U.S.C. § 2401(b) may be equitably tolled

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 discovery rule inapplicable to § 2462 limitations period

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

Finding that Navy did not act intentionally or willfully under § 552a(g) because it was "warranted [in its] belief that its actions were lawful [under the Privacy Act]"

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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

Recognizing the federal rules of civil procedure should be employed to promote the "just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action and proceeding"

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

Providing that decisions related to the provision of a veteran's benefits "may not be reviewed by any court, whether by an action in the nature of mandamus or otherwise."