§Why CasetextPricing

Reidel, Jennifer v. United States of America

Brief in Support of 5 Motion to Dismiss

16 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 253,227 times   279 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

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 267,097 times   365 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' "

  3. Jones v. Bock

    549 U.S. 199 (2007)   Cited 12,834 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that PLRA exhaustion is mandatory, and prisoners cannot bring unexhausted claims into federal court

  4. In re Burlington Coat Factory

    114 F.3d 1410 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 7,662 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a court may consider a "document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint" when deciding a motion to dismiss

  5. Venture Associates v. Zenith Data Systems

    987 F.2d 429 (7th Cir. 1993)   Cited 1,790 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding "minor, non-substantive changes" in response to offer prevented contract formation under Illinois law

  6. International Audiotext Network, Inc. v. AT&T

    62 F.3d 69 (2d Cir. 1995)   Cited 1,349 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if a complaint "relies heavily upon [a contract's] terms and effect" the contract may be considered at the 12(b) stage even if the contract is not incorporated in or attached to the complaint

  7. E.Y. v. United States

    758 F.3d 861 (7th Cir. 2014)   Cited 81 times
    Finding accrual to be a question of fact

  8. Jackson v. United States

    751 F.3d 712 (6th Cir. 2014)   Cited 79 times
    Determining that "the district court did not abuse its discretion in considering the fourth factor, prejudice, as it noted the difficulty the government would have in litigating a matter that was filed four months beyond the limitations period"

  9. Tribue v. U.S.

    826 F.2d 633 (7th Cir. 1987)   Cited 19 times
    Calculating the six-month limitations period “from the day after mailing to the day before the same calendar date six months later”

  10. Shoff v. U.S.

    245 F.3d 1266 (11th Cir. 2001)   Cited 5 times
    Affirming dismissal of plaintiff's FTCA claims where plaintiff filed his complaint in federal court seven months after the date of mailing of the agency's denial letter

  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 346,412 times   923 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Section 2671 - Definitions

    28 U.S.C. § 2671   Cited 9,375 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "

  13. Section 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence

    28 U.S.C. § 2675   Cited 7,085 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement

  14. Section 2401 - Time for commencing action against United States

    28 U.S.C. § 2401   Cited 6,197 times   26 Legal Analyses
    Establishing that an FTCA claim must be brought in writing to the relevant agency within two years after accrual of the claim

  15. Section 14.9 - Final denial of claim

    28 C.F.R. § 14.9   Cited 182 times
    Stating the notice of denial "may include a statement of the reasons for the denial"