McElmurray v. CONSOLIDATED GOV'T, AUGUSTA-RICHMOND COUNTY

How courts have described this case

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

• deciding that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was facial because “[t]he district court did not decide any issues of disputed fact”
• deciding that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was facial because “[t]he district court did not decide any issues of disputed fact”
• deciding that a dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction was facial because “[t]he district court did not decide any issues of disputed fact”
• concluding that district court orders constituted public disclosures under the FCA
• noting that “in a factual challenge the district court must give the plaintiff an opportunity for discovery”
• noting that under a Rule 12(b)(1) facial attack a plaintiff has \safeguards similar to those retained when a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim is raised\

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).