Case law

Bowyer v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 2009

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S. Ct. 1937, 1949-1950 (2009); Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “[A] complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims.” … Gustave-Schmidt v. Chao, 226 F.

Rosier v. Holder

833 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2011

v. … Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C.Cir.1985) (citations omitted).

U.S. Leasing Corp. v. Resolution Trust Corp.

825 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 1993

RTC v. Mustang Partners, 946 F.2d 103 (10th Cir.1991). … "FSLIC owned all of FADA’s stock, selected FADÁ’s board of directors, and sent a representative to all FADA’s board meetings.” Id. at 1202 .

Jenkins v. Washington Convention Center

59 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 1999

See Silverman v. … (“Board of Tax Appeals”) from suits at law.

National Ass'n of Motor Bus Owners v. United States

370 F. Supp. 408 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1974

Similarly, in CAB v. Delta Airlines, supra, Delta challenged an order of the Board barring certain flights which Delta had been operating under an existing certificate. … American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 123 U.S. App.D.C. 310, 359 F.2d 624 (1966) and Regular Common Carrier Conference v.

Nader v. Baroody

396 F. Supp. 1231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 1975

United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 711 , 94 S.Ct. 3090 , 41 L. Ed.2d 1039 (1974); Myers v. United States, 272 U.S. 52, 131, 164 , 47 S.Ct. 21 , 71 L.Ed. 160 (1926): Soucie v. … The Supreme Court in United States v.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey

573 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2008

In the first case, Florida Prepaid Postsecondary Education Expense Board v. … And in Board of Trustees of the University of Alabama v.

Switzer v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2022

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). Pleadings filed by pro se litigants are held to “less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers.” Haines v. … See, e.g., Brown v. Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth., 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2016) (dismissing a complaint sua sponte for failing to comply with Rule 8(a)); Hamrick v.

Jackson v. United States

857 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2012

Epps v. U.S. Atty Gen., 575 F. Supp. 2d 232, 238 (D.D.C. 2008); see also Benoit v. U.S. Dept. of Agriculture, 608 F.3d 17, 20 (D.C. … Brown ¶¶ 3-4.) Plaintiff’s response to the motion to dismiss does not mention exhaustion or refer to any prior administrative proceedings.

Patterson v. Florida Department of Children and Families

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 2023

See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). … See Achagzai v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 170 F.

Frye v. Cooper

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 6, 2023

Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987) (citing Redwood v. Council of the District of Columbia, 679 F.2d 931, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977) (citation omitted). Jones’ petition does not meet the Rule 8 pleading standard.

Kaupthing Ehf v. Bricklayers and Trowel Trades International Pension Fund Liquidation Portfolio

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2017

Plaintiff has come to this Court to enforce the Icelandic Judgment, suing the Account, the Fund, and the Fund’s Board of Trustees. … v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011). This jurisdiction is embodied in D.C.’s general-jurisdiction provision, D.C. Code § 13-334(a), which has been interpreted as being equivalent to the Due Process Clause in scope.

Housley v. United States Department of the Treasury

697 F. Supp. 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 1988

Pratt v. Webster, 673 F.2d 408 , 420-421 *5 (D.C.Cir.1982). … Brown v. FBI, 658 F.2d 71 , 75 (2d Cir.1981) (citation omitted). The privacy interests at stake here are substantial.

Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2011

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Hill v.

Chen v. Metropolitan Police Department

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 2022

Morton v. United States, No. 1:19-CV-00514, 2019 WL 1924252, at *1 (D.D.C. Apr. 26, 2019) (citations omitted); see Lance v. … See Brown v.

Coley v. Bank of America Corp.

34 F. Supp. 3d 62 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Poblete v. Goldberg, 680 F. Supp. 2d 18, 19 (D.D.C. 2009) (quoting Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 499 (D.D.C. 1977)).

United States v. First Choice Armor & Equipment, Inc.

808 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2011

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” … Lee v.

Lee v. Joongangilbo USA, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 13, 2026

See Inst. for Pol’y Stud. v. … Leasing Corp. v.

In the Matter of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Execution Protocol Cases

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2020

See also Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 316–18 (1979) (finding government violations of Trade Secrets Act reviewable even where Act contained no private right of action). … FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000).

Miller v. International Olympic Committee

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2020

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). “A confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F.