Laguna Hermosa Corp. 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 issues were not identical for purposes of issue preclusion because in one case, the court was required to interpret a particular statutory word, whereas in the other, that analysis was unnecessary
• holding dismissal under RCFC 12(b)(6) is required “when the facts asserted do not give rise to a legal remedy, . . . or do not elevate a claim for relief to the realm of plausibility” (citations omitted)
• issue preclusion requires, inter alia, that “resolution of the issue was essential to a 38 SHELL OIL COMPANY v. US final judgment in the first action”
• “A complaint must be dismissed under [RCFC] 12(b)(6) when the facts asserted do not give rise to a legal remedy . . . .”
• “Our task is to interpret the statute as written, as we have, not to rewrite it.”
• cit- ing Lindsay, 295 F.3d at 1257, and Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678-79

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).