Legal Opinion
Hill v. Didio
Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
Decided June 20, 2006No. 05-4556PublishedCited by 87 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SUMMARY ORDER
Elaine Hill, pro se, appeals from the district court’s dismissal of her complaint, pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. We assume the parties’ familiarity with the underlying facts and procedural history.
On appeal from a dismissal of a complaint due to lack of subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), this Court reviews “factual findings for clear error and legal conclusions de novo.” Makarova v. United States, 201 F.3d 110, 113 (2d Cir.2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). A district court’s dismissal for…
2Cases cited12 opinions
- Carnegie-Mellon University v. CohillSupreme Court of the United States · 1988
- Natalia Makarova v. United StatesCourt of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 2000
- Gonzaga University v. DoeSupreme Court of the United States · 2002
- Robinson v. Overseas Military Sales Corp.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1994
- Connecticut Action Now, Inc. v. Roberts Plating Company, Inc.Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit · 1972
7 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by87 opinions
- Turner v. BoyleDistrict Court, D. Connecticut · 2015
- Cain v. Christine Valmy International School of Esthetics, Skin Care, & MakeupDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2016
- Christian v. Town of RigaDistrict Court, W.D. New York · 2009
- Boyd v. Wilmington Trust Co.District Court, D. Delaware · 2009
- Segarra v. Federal Reserve BankDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2014
82 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.