Kerns 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.

• holding that the court should have allowed discovery and set an evidentiary hearing where the jurisdictional facts were intertwined with the facts central to the merits of the dispute
• holding that the jurisdictional facts were intertwined with those central to the merits because “the scope-of-employment issue [was] determinative of both jurisdiction and the underlying merits of [plaintiff’s] FTCA claim”
• noting that a facial challenge occurs when the defendant contends that a complaint fails to allege facts upon which subject matter jurisdiction can be based
• stating that a Rule 12(b)(1) non-movant receives the “same procedural protection as she would receive” under Rule 12(b)(6) when a facial challenge is raised
• holding district court must take as true the facts alleged in the complaint when the defendant poses a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction
• instructing that in a facial challenge to subject matter jurisdiction the plaintiff enjoys “the same procedural protection not under the jurisdictional provision of Rule 12(b)(1

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).