David Holt, as Personal Representative of the Estates of James W. Holt and Joan Holt, Deceased 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.

• recognizing that district courts have “wide discretion” to consider eviden- tiary materials when resolving a motion challenging jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1
• concluding that factual issue as to whether a statute conferring immunity was implicated gave rise to factual attack on subject-matter jurisdiction
• holding that when there is a factual attack, the Court may go beyond allegations contained in the complaint and consider evidence presented by the parties upon which the Court’s subject matter jurisdiction depends
• stating that when analyzing a facial attack under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the court “must accept the allegations in the complaint as true”
• explaining that “[t]he jurisdictional question is intertwined with the merits of the case if subject matter jurisdiction is dependent on the same statute which provides the substantive claim in the case”
• stating that when analyzing a facial attack under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the court “must accept the allegations in the complaint as true”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).