28 Cited authorities

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of America
511 U.S. 375 (1994) Cited 19,110 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that absent a reservation of jurisdiction in the stipulated dismissal order, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider enforcement of a settlement agreement
McNeil v. United States
508 U.S. 106 (1993) Cited 6,730 times
Holding that an action must be dismissed when statutory exhaustion requirement was not met until after action was filed
Ghazali v. Moran
46 F.3d 52 (9th Cir. 1995) Cited 7,187 times
Holding that a court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to comply with the court's Local Rules
Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer
373 F.3d 1035 (9th Cir. 2004) Cited 3,243 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding residue generated from the cultivation of bluegrass was not discarded because, among other things, it was reused "in a continuous process of growing and harvesting Kentucky bluegrass seeds, the generating industry"
McCarthy v. U.S.
850 F.2d 558 (9th Cir. 1988) Cited 1,151 times
Holding that a court "may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction"
Augustine v. United States
704 F.2d 1074 (9th Cir. 1983) Cited 888 times
Holding that a court may address jurisdictional and substantive issues concurrently if they are "intertwined"
Vacek v. U.S. Postal Service
447 F.3d 1248 (9th Cir. 2006) Cited 389 times
Holding that the mailbox rule does not apply to claims brought under the FTCA
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
Beamon v. Brown
125 F.3d 965 (6th Cir. 1997) Cited 163 times
Holding that “the APA does not express the U.S. government's consent to suit if an alternate adequate remedy is available to review a final agency action”
Spawr v. United States
796 F.2d 279 (9th Cir. 1986) Cited 37 times
Holding that, because the United States initiated proceedings against the defendants that did not sound in tort, when the defendants initiated suit in a different forum and sought money damages, their claim was "of a different nature" and, therefore, not permitted under the FTCA
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 347,142 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
Section 1331 - Federal question
28 U.S.C. § 1331 Cited 97,699 times 135 Legal Analyses
Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."
Section 1346 - United States as defendant
28 U.S.C. § 1346 Cited 24,089 times 23 Legal Analyses
Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"
Section 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
5 U.S.C. § 552 Cited 12,188 times 556 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party
Section 701 - Application; definitions
5 U.S.C. § 701 Cited 9,382 times 36 Legal Analyses
Adopting the definition given in Section 551
Section 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence
28 U.S.C. § 2675 Cited 7,098 times 1 Legal Analyses
Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement
Section 702 - Right of review
5 U.S.C. § 702 Cited 7,071 times 24 Legal Analyses
Granting judicial review of "agency action"
Section 2679 - Exclusiveness of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2679 Cited 5,345 times 5 Legal Analyses
Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees
Section 7292 - Review by United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit
38 U.S.C. § 7292 Cited 1,723 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 606 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 3.2 - Periods of war
38 C.F.R. § 3.2 Cited 8 times
This section sets forth the beginning and ending dates of each war period beginning with the Indian wars. Note that the term period of war in reference to pension entitlement under 38 U.S.C. 1521 , 1541 and 1542 means all of the war periods listed in this section except the Indian wars and the Spanish-American War. See § 3.3(a)(3) and (b)(4)(i) . (a)Indian wars. January 1, 1817, through December 31, 1898, inclusive. Service must have been rendered with the United States military forces against Indian

Swanson v. Attorney General et al

28 Cited authorities

Holding that absent a reservation of jurisdiction in the stipulated dismissal order, federal courts lack jurisdiction to consider enforcement of a settlement agreement

Holding that an action must be dismissed when statutory exhaustion requirement was not met until after action was filed

Holding that a court may dismiss an action based on a party's failure to comply with the court's Local Rules

Holding residue generated from the cultivation of bluegrass was not discarded because, among other things, it was reused "in a continuous process of growing and harvesting Kentucky bluegrass seeds, the generating industry"

Holding that a court "may review any evidence, such as affidavits and testimony, to resolve factual disputes concerning the existence of jurisdiction"

Holding that a court may address jurisdictional and substantive issues concurrently if they are "intertwined"

Holding that the mailbox rule does not apply to claims brought under the FTCA

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

Holding that “the APA does not express the U.S. government's consent to suit if an alternate adequate remedy is available to review a final agency action”

Holding that, because the United States initiated proceedings against the defendants that did not sound in tort, when the defendants initiated suit in a different forum and sought money damages, their claim was "of a different nature" and, therefore, not permitted under the FTCA

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

Finding that in order to invoke federal question jurisdiction, a plaintiff's claims must arise "under the Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States."

Determining liability to the claimant "in accordance with the law of the place where the act or omission occurred"

Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party

Adopting the definition given in Section 551

Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement

Granting judicial review of "agency action"

Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees

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."