Mary Smith v. Regional Transit Authority, e

How courts have described this case

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

• finding that the government-plan exemption was a merits issue and stating that “any contrary reading of [that circuit’s precedent] cannot stand”
• noting that questions of fact necessary to a determination of subject matter jurisdiction are properly determined by the district court ruling on a motion under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1). Butler argues that (1
• observing that “disputed questions of fact are anathema to Rule 12(b)(6) jurisprudence”
• remanding for consideration through “the proper procedural vehicle” of a Rule 12(b)(6) or 56 motion, rather than a Rule 12(b)(1) motion

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).