Cna v. United States

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• concluding that plaintiffs are adequately protected because district courts require “less of a factual showing than would be required to succeed at trial”
• holding that district court did not err as a matter of law by ruling on subject matter jurisdiction without first granting discovery
• recognizing that review at summary judgment provides more procedural protections for plaintiffs than does review under Rule 12(b)(1), because under Rule 12(b)(1) the district court “may independently evaluate the evidence regarding disputes over jurisdictional facts”
• holding that the Federal Tort Claims Act’s “scope-of-employment 9|| requirement” was jurisdictional because the requirement “appears in the same sentence as 10 || Congress’s grant of jurisdiction” and thus should be resolved under Rule 12(b)(1)
• explaining that the approach of the Third Circuit has been to “make disputes over the scope-of-employment requirement ... jurisdictional.”
• explaining that “‘[t]he cause of action in an FTCA claim . . . must come from state tort law”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).