22 Cited authorities

Ashcroft v. Iqbal
556 U.S. 662 (2009) Cited 255,027 times 280 Legal Analyses
Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable
Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly
550 U.S. 544 (2007) Cited 268,773 times 367 Legal Analyses
Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "
Navarro v. Block
250 F.3d 729 (9th Cir. 2001) Cited 5,587 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that dismissal is proper where there is "an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory"
Parks School of Business, Inc. v. Symington
51 F.3d 1480 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 2,541 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that a corporation had standing to sue under § 1981 alleging that defendants discriminated against it because it contracts with racial minorities
Cousins v. Lockyer
568 F.3d 1063 (9th Cir. 2009) Cited 1,367 times
Holding that "state departmental regulations do not establish a federal constitutional violation."
Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp.
530 F.3d 852 (9th Cir. 2008) Cited 920 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that "claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall with express and implied warranty claims under state law"
Land v. Dollar
330 U.S. 731 (1947) Cited 1,224 times
Holding generally that the District Court has the authority to consider questions of jurisdiction on the basis of affidavits as well as the pleadings
Veterans for Common Sense v. Shinseki
678 F.3d 1013 (9th Cir. 2012) Cited 160 times
Holding that § 511 did not strip jurisdiction over a facial procedural due process claim
Price v. U.S.
228 F.3d 420 (D.C. Cir. 2000) Cited 121 times
Holding that § 511 stripped jurisdiction over a veteran's claim that the VA wrongfully denied reimbursement
Biotics Research Corp. v. Heckler
710 F.2d 1375 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 177 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding FDA regulatory letter was not final agency action where it did not commit FDA to bring enforcement action
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 348,309 times 929 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Section 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence
28 U.S.C. § 2675 Cited 7,116 times 1 Legal Analyses
Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement
Section 1442 - Federal officers or agencies sued or prosecuted
28 U.S.C. § 1442 Cited 5,144 times 88 Legal Analyses
Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"
Section 7292 - Review by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
38 U.S.C. § 7292 Cited 1,730 times
Granting this court "exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any ... regulation or any interpretation thereof" by the Veterans Court
Section 511 - Decisions of the Secretary; finality
38 U.S.C. § 511 Cited 608 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."
Section 1254 - Courts of appeals; certiorari; certified questions
28 U.S.C. § 1254 Cited 409 times 10 Legal Analyses
Granting mandatory appeals jurisdiction to this Court where "a State statute [is] held by a court of appeals to be invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States"
Section 7252 - Jurisdiction; finality of decisions
38 U.S.C. § 7252 Cited 357 times
Granting the Veterans Court "power to affirm, modify, or reverse a decision of the Board or to remand the matter, as appropriate"

Ramos v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs et al

22 Cited authorities

Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

Holding that dismissal is proper where there is "an absence of sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory"

Holding that a corporation had standing to sue under § 1981 alleging that defendants discriminated against it because it contracts with racial minorities

Holding that "state departmental regulations do not establish a federal constitutional violation."

Holding that "claims under the Magnuson–Moss Act stand or fall with express and implied warranty claims under state law"

Holding generally that the District Court has the authority to consider questions of jurisdiction on the basis of affidavits as well as the pleadings

Holding that § 511 did not strip jurisdiction over a facial procedural due process claim

Holding that § 511 stripped jurisdiction over a veteran's claim that the VA wrongfully denied reimbursement

Holding FDA regulatory letter was not final agency action where it did not commit FDA to bring enforcement action

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

Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement

Granting removal power to "[a]ny officer of the United States . . . or person acting under him"

Granting this court "exclusive jurisdiction to review and decide any challenge to the validity of any ... regulation or any interpretation thereof" by the Veterans Court

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."

Granting mandatory appeals jurisdiction to this Court where "a State statute [is] held by a court of appeals to be invalid as repugnant to the Constitution, treaties, or laws of the United States"

Granting the Veterans Court "power to affirm, modify, or reverse a decision of the Board or to remand the matter, as appropriate"