§Why CasetextPricing

Mendez v. United States of America

MOTION for Summary Judgment

17 Cited authorities

  1. Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.

    477 U.S. 242 (1986)   Cited 235,724 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"

  2. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett

    477 U.S. 317 (1986)   Cited 215,904 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"

  3. Nat'l Assoc. Home v. Defenders of Wildlife

    551 U.S. 644 (2007)   Cited 867 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding alleged agency error harmless

  4. Judulang v. Holder

    565 U.S. 42 (2011)   Cited 361 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that an irrational application of a statute is arbitrary and capricious

  5. Chappell v. Wallace

    462 U.S. 296 (1983)   Cited 896 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "it would be inappropriate to provide enlisted military personnel a Bivens-type remedy against their superior officers" for constitutional violations

  6. Shwarz v. U.S.

    234 F.3d 428 (9th Cir. 2000)   Cited 798 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that section 7433 is the "exclusive remedy" for recovering damages for improper inspection and disclosure of returns

  7. Conner v. U.S. Dep't of the Army

    6 F. Supp. 3d 717 (W.D. Ky. 2014)   Cited 7 times
    Noting that a complaint fails to state a claim if all claims contained within fall outside of the applicable limitations period

  8. Yearwood v. United States

    124 F. Supp. 3d 1204 (N.D. Ala. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Case No. 5:14–cv–01599–TMP 08-24-2015 Roger D. Yearwood, Plaintiff, v. United States of America, Defendant. Frank S. James, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff. Jason R. Cheek, US Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant. T. MICHAEL PUTNAM, UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE Frank S. James, III, Baker Donelson Bearman Caldwell & Berkowitz PC, Birmingham, AL, for Plaintiff. Jason R. Cheek, US Attorney's Office, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant. MEMORANDUM

  9. Fail v. United States

    Civil Action No. 12-cv-01761-MSK-CBS (D. Colo. Sep. 27, 2013)   Cited 6 times
    In Fail, however - a case in which Burns herself was also the certifying medical professional supporting the claimant - the Court upheld the relevant administrative determination because it was reasonable for the agency “not to simply defer to Ms. Burns' opinions, and instead, [to] review[ ] Mr. Fail's medical records itself to determine whether such records supported the claimed limitations.

  10. Blackwood v. United States

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15CV-00402-JHM (W.D. Ky. Oct. 5, 2016)

    CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:15CV-00402-JHM 10-05-2016 DEVAL BLACKWOOD PLAINTIFF v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA DEFENDANT Joseph H. McKinley, Jr., Chief Judge United States District Court MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER This matter is before the Court on a motion by Plaintiff, Deval Blackwood, for attorney's fees and costs [DN 26]. Fully briefed, this matter is ripe for decision. I. BACKGROUND This action arises from the denial of benefits under the Traumatic Servicemembers' Group Life Insurance Program ("TSGLI")

  11. Rule 56 - Summary Judgment

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 56   Cited 328,019 times   158 Legal Analyses
    Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

  12. Section 706 - Scope of review

    5 U.S.C. § 706   Cited 20,395 times   183 Legal Analyses
    Granting courts jurisdiction to "compel agency action unlawfully held or unreasonably delayed"

  13. Section 1552 - Correction of military records: claims incident thereto

    10 U.S.C. § 1552   Cited 782 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Explaining that "[t]he Secretary of a military department may correct any military record" if it is "necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice" through "boards of civilians of the executive part of that military department"

  14. Section 5107 - Claimant responsibility; benefit of the doubt

    38 U.S.C. § 5107   Cited 185 times
    Granting veteran claimants benefit of the doubt

  15. Section 1975 - Jurisdiction of District Courts

    38 U.S.C. § 1975   Cited 48 times
    Granting any district court of the United States with original jurisdiction over TSGLI claims

  16. Section 1980A - Traumatic injury protection

    38 U.S.C. § 1980A   Cited 27 times
    Setting forth process for TSGLI benefits claims

  17. Section 581.3 - Army Board for Correction of Military Records

    32 C.F.R. § 581.3   Cited 138 times
    Providing that an "application may be returned without action if . . . [t]he ABCMR does not have jurisdiction to grant the requested relief