Stalley Ex Rel. United States v. Catholic Health Initiatives

How courts have described this case

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

• noting that individuals “could recover double damages to vindicate their private rights when their primary payers fail to live up to their obligations”
• noting that the FCC is authorized to issue a declaratory ruling “to terminate a controversy or remove uncertainty”
• explaining that the MSP Act “purports to give a substantive right to individuals qua individuals, not as private attorneys general or assignees of a public right”
• noting that while a court accepts as true “all factual allegations” it should give “no effect to conclusory allegations of law” when determining whether plaintiff has established the court’s subject matter jurisdiction
• explaining that courts still “giv[e] no effect to conclusory allegations of law,” and “[t]he plaintiff must assert facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that the pleader has the right he claims (here, the right to jurisdiction
• explaining that on a Rule 12(b)(1) facial challenge, courts “giv[e] no effect to conclusory allegations of law,” and “[t]he plaintiff must assert facts that affirmatively and plausibly suggest that the pleader has the right he claims (here, the right to jurisdiction

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).