holding that the borrowed servant doctrine is inappo-site where the District of Columbia and United States engage in mutual or joint law enforcement action
How later courts described this case
- holding that the borrowed servant doctrine is inappo-site where the District of Columbia and United States engage in mutual or joint law enforcement action
- stating that the claims of the class representative must be typical of the class as a whole
- noting that “the borrowed servant doctrine . . . conceives of authoritative direction and control vesting in one master to the exclusion of the other” (emphasis added)
- noting that in the criminal context, “the critical event triggering liability for malicious prosecution is the filing of an information”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Later courts went against this
Questioned by Thomas v. District of Columbia, 82 F.R.D. 93 (1979)
Whether Dellums is overruled sub silentio by Monell, which was relied on by the District in its subsequently withdrawn motion and by plaintiff in his present motion, only time will tell.
The opinion
TAMM, Circuit Judge,
dissenting:
I respectfully dissent for the reasons set forth in my dissenting opinion in Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 275 , 566 F.2d 167 (1977).