§Why CasetextPricing

Ruschak v. Tauberg et al

BRIEF in Support re Motion to Dismiss

30 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 262,920 times   281 Legal Analyses
    Holding court need not credit "mere conclusory statements" in complaint

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 276,185 times   369 Legal Analyses
    Holding that allegations of conduct that are merely consistent with wrongdoing do not state a claim unless "placed in a context that raises a suggestion of" such wrongdoing

  3. Erickson v. Pardus

    551 U.S. 89 (2007)   Cited 64,160 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint must "give the defendant fair notice of what the . . . claim is and the grounds upon which it rests"

  4. Haines v. Kerner

    404 U.S. 519 (1972)   Cited 60,031 times
    Holding pro se submissions "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

  5. Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer

    510 U.S. 471 (1994)   Cited 7,238 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a Bivens claim does not lie against federal agencies because, if damages claims were permitted against federal agencies, "there would be no reason for aggrieved parties to bring damages actions against individual officers" and thus "the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost"

  6. Phillips v. County of Allegheny

    515 F.3d 224 (3d Cir. 2008)   Cited 17,313 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a district court need not permit a curative amendment if such amendment would be futile

  7. Fowler v. UPMC Shadyside

    578 F.3d 203 (3d Cir. 2009)   Cited 14,412 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the district court did not abuse its discretion "in denying a motion for a class action determination which was untimely under the local rule"

  8. Califano v. Sanders

    430 U.S. 99 (1977)   Cited 4,338 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "the APA is not to be interpreted as an implied grant of subject-matter jurisdiction to review agency actions"

  9. Morse v. Lower Merion School District

    132 F.3d 902 (3d Cir. 1997)   Cited 6,309 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that because "the notion of deliberate indifference contemplates a danger that must at least be foreseeable," defendant cannot be said to have ignored a foreseeable risk or danger if plaintiff has not shown the existence of such a risk

  10. Weinberger v. Salfi

    422 U.S. 749 (1975)   Cited 2,788 times
    Holding existence of a final decision made after a hearing is central to the grant of subject matter jurisdiction under § 405(g)

  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 357,280 times   950 Legal Analyses
    Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

  12. Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 8   Cited 161,761 times   197 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

  13. Section 405 - Evidence, procedure, and certification for payments

    42 U.S.C. § 405   Cited 160,159 times   34 Legal Analyses
    Ruling out jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331, 1346

  14. Section 1346 - United States as defendant

    28 U.S.C. § 1346   Cited 24,451 times   23 Legal Analyses
    Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

  15. Section 2671 - Definitions

    28 U.S.C. § 2671   Cited 9,573 times   6 Legal Analyses
    Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "

  16. Section 404.900 - Introduction

    20 C.F.R. § 404.900   Cited 1,337 times
    Explaining the six-step administrative review process at issue in both cases