green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 2×
61.7 score
“a complaint must be dismissed under 12(b)(6) when the facts asserted do not give rise to a legal remedy . . . .”
Treatment trajectory · 2012 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2012
2019
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Mvl USA, Inc. v. United States
our task is to interpret the statute as written, as we have, not to rewrite it.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Labatte v. United States
a complaint must be dismissed under 12(b)(6) when the facts asserted do not give rise to a legal remedy . . . .
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bass v. United States
(3×)
also: Cited "see"
“A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Campo v. United States
Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Turner v. United States
“A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Strong v. United States
“A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pellegrino v. United States
“A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chisum v. United States
Cir. 2002), or the facts “do not elevate a claim for relief to the realm of plausibil- ity,” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Nauset Construction Corporation
Group, Inc., ASBCA No. 57322 , 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,893 at 175,471 (citing Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Stephens v. United States
Cir. 2002), or the facts “do not elevate a claim for relief to the realm of plausibility,” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
FLETCHER v. United States
The Court then considers the arguments on the merits. i. Issue preclusion “[T]he doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, protects the finality of judgments by ‘precluding relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.’” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Proctor v. United States
Cl. 102 , 116 (2024) (citing Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Monbo v. United States
Issue preclusion “protects the finality of judgments by precluding relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1287 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Day v. United States
“A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Attia v. United States
“A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
White v. United States
“A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Chisum v. United States
Cir. 2002), or the facts “do not elevate a claim for relief to the realm of plausibility,” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Villalobos v. United States
“A complaint must be dismissed un- der Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Holtec Palisades, LLC v. United States
Issue preclusion “protects the finality of judgments by precluding relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1287 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Metzinger v. United States
“A complaint must be dis- missed under Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Technatomy Corporation v. United States
“A complaint must be dismissed under Rule 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
IPA Technologies Inc. v. Microsoft Corporation
Jean Alexander Cosms., Inc. v. L'Oreal USA, Inc., 458 F.3d 244, 249 (3d Cir. 2006); Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cully Corporation v. United States
The doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, “protects the finality of judgments by precluding relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
CiyaSoft Corporation
Grp., Inc.by Timothy Cory, Chapter 7 Trustee, ASBCA No. 57322 , 15-1 BCA ¶ 35,893 at 175,471 (citing Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Wickramaratna v. United States
Thus, Plaintiff’s complaint “fails to ‘elevate a claim for relief to the realm of plausibility’ as required by RCFC 12(b)(6).” Id. (quoting Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cully Corporation v. United States
The doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, “protects the finality of judgments by precluding relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sarah E. Price Revocable Trust Dated June 30, 2014 v. United States
The doctrine of issue preclusion, or collateral estoppel, “protects the finality of judgements by ‘preclud[ing] relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.’” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Seneca Sawmill Company v. United States
Cir. 2012) (citing Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bondyopadhyay v. United States
The United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit has set out four guidelines for determining whether issue preclusion is appropriate: Issue preclusion bars a cause of action when four conditions are met: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Pacific Coast Community Services, Inc. v. United States
“A complaint must be dismissed under [RCFC] 12(b)(6) 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.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Koopmann v. United States
Id. at 5–6 (citing Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Georgia Power Company v. United States
The doctrine of collateral estoppel “protects the finality of judgments by ‘preclud[ing] relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.’” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc.
Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Kemper
(3×)
also: Cited "see", Cited "see, e.g."
The Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit set out four guidelines for determining whether issue preclusion is appropriate: issue preclusion bars a cause of action when four conditions are met: “(t) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Laquna i-lermosa Corp. v. United States 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Georgia Power Company v. United States
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, “protects the finality of judgments by ‘preclud[ing] relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.’” See Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alabama Power Company v. United States
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, “protects the finality of judgments by ‘preclud[ing] relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.’” See Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Georgia Power Company v. United States
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, “protects the finality of judgments by ‘preclud[ing] relitigation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.’” See Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
DynCorp International LLC
Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Georgia Power Company v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, “protects the finality of judgments by ‘precluding] reliti-gation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.’ ” See Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Georgia Power Company v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
The doctrine of collateral estoppel, also known as issue preclusion, “protects the finality of judgments by ‘precluding] reliti-gation in a second suit of claims actually litigated and determined in the first suit.’ ” See Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Jones v. United States
Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Entergy Nuclear Indian Point 2, LLC v. United States
Def.’s Post-Trial Brief at 41; Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lea v. United States
The Federal Circuit has explained that: Issue preclusion bars a cause of action when four conditions are met: “(1) the issue is identical to one decided in the first action; (2) the issue was actually litigated in the first action; (3) resolution of the issue was essential to a final judgment in the first action; and (4) the plaintiff had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the issue in the first action.” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284,1288 (Fed.Cir.2012) (quoting In re Freeman, 30 F.3d 1459, 1465 (Fed.Cir.1994)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Baker v. United States
Kam-Almas v. United States, 682 F.3d 1364, 1368 (Fed.Cir.2012) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction); Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sheridan v. United States
Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2012) (dismissal for failure to state a claim); Holmes v. United States, 657 F,3d 1303, 1309 (Fed.Cir.2011) (dismissal for lack of jurisdiction).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
System Fuels, Inc. v. United States
In sum, the Government contends that collateral estoppel does not apply in this case, because “[n]o casks were loaded during the first round claim period ...., [so] the issue of [Plaintiffs’] actual incurred loading costs was not before the [c]ourt during the first round.” Gov’t 10/3/14 Br. at 49 (citing Arkla, Inc. v. United States, 37 F.3d 621, 624 (Fed.Cir.1994) (“Collateral estoppel is only appropriate if ... the issue to be decided is identical to one decided in the first action[.]”); Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2012) (holding that colla…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
United Access Technologies, LLC v. Centurytel Broadband Services LLC
Agency, 126 F.3d 461, 474-75 (3d Cir.1997); Stephen Slesinger, Inc. v. Disney Enters., Inc., 702 F.3d 640, 644 (Fed.Cir.2012); Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2012); 18 Charles Alan Wright, Arthur R.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Alabama Power Company v. United States
Plaintiffs’ claim fails on the first requirement for collateral estoppel — that the “issue is identical to one decided in the first action.” See Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2012) (listing the four requirements to prove collateral estoppel).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vane Minerals (Us), LLC v. United States
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
Gov’t Reply 4 (citing Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.Cir.2012) (holding that collateral estoppel did not apply where an issue decided in an earlier case was not identical to the issue in the pending ease)). b.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc. v. United States
(2×)
“This court . . . reviews de novo a dismissal for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Court of Federal Claims, just as it does dismissals under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).” Laguna Hermosa Corp. v. United States, 671 F.3d 1284, 1288 (Fed.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In re PLASTICS ADDITIVES ANTITRUST LITIGATION. Arkema Inc., at No. 07-2159. Rohm & Haas Company, at No. 07-2418
Nos. 07-2159, 07-2418.
Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.
Jan 27, 2009.
Ambro, Fisher, Scirica.
Published
ORDER
ANTHONY J. SCIRICA, Chief Judge.It is hereby ordered that the order of the District Court certifying the class is vacated and the case is remanded for further proceedings consistent with this Court’s opinion in In re Hydrogen Peroxide Antitrust Litigation, 552 F.3d 305 (3rd Cir.2008).