§Why CasetextPricing

IN RE: DEPARTMENT OF VETERANS AFFAIRS (VA) DATA THEFT LITIGATION - MDL 1796

REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Discovery Pursuant to Rule 56

11 Cited authorities

  1. Warth v. Seldin

    422 U.S. 490 (1975)   Cited 12,061 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

  2. Doe v. Chao

    540 U.S. 614 (2004)   Cited 495 times   10 Legal Analyses
    Holding a plaintiff must prove causation in order to obtain damages

  3. Bowen v. Kendrick

    487 U.S. 589 (1988)   Cited 326 times
    Holding that Adolescent Family Life Act on its face did not violate the Establishment Clause, but remanding for examination of the constitutionality of particular applications

  4. Secretary of Interior v. California

    464 U.S. 312 (1984)   Cited 123 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Upholding use of "Secretary Issue Document" to evaluate significance of new size estimates for off-shore oil and gas deposits

  5. Colbert v. Potter

    471 F.3d 158 (D.C. Cir. 2006)   Cited 90 times
    Holding that plaintiff had adequate notice and sufficient opportunity to present evidence when defendant's dismissal motion alternatively requested summary judgment and the plaintiff attached exhibits to her opposition to motion to dismiss

  6. Price v. Pierce

    823 F.2d 1114 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 71 times
    Holding that contract between private parties but approved by federal agency pursuant to statutory authority presented a federal question and would be decided under federal law because it would be "odd" that a suit concerning contracts "fundamental to the achievement of [the agency's] objective under [federal law] would have to be brought in state court and decided in accordance with state contract law"

  7. National Wildlife Federation v. Agricultural Stabilization & Conservation Service

    955 F.2d 1199 (8th Cir. 1992)   Cited 20 times

    No. 90-5483. Submitted March 11, 1991. Decided February 5, 1992. Anthony Turrini, Anchorage, Alaska, argued, for appellants. Catherine Fisk, Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., argued, for appellee. Appeals from the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota. Before WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge, FLOYD R. GIBSON, Senior Circuit Judge, and BEAM, Circuit Judge. BEAM, Circuit Judge. The National Wildlife Federation, the Minnesota Conservation Federation, the Izaak Walton League of America,

  8. 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 354,229 times   943 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  9. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 333,232 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  10. Rule 7 - Pleadings Allowed; Form of Motions and Other Papers

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 7   Cited 7,742 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Defining "pleadings" for purposes of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure

  11. Section 552a - Records maintained on individuals

    5 U.S.C. § 552a   Cited 4,511 times   47 Legal Analyses
    Finding that it is a Department of Justice component that has as its principal function the enforcement of criminal laws includ[ing] correctional authorities