In Bechtel & Cole v. Graceland Broad. Inc., 18 F.3d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1994), a panel of this Court explicitly held that "discretionary" conduct "not dependent on 'the unique character of the District as the seat of national government'... fall[s] outside the protective scope of the government contacts doctrine."
Summary of this case from Akhmetshin v. BrowderNo. 92-7190.
March 9, 1994.
Appeal from the D.C.D.C.
AFFIRMED.
In Bechtel & Cole v. Graceland Broad. Inc., 18 F.3d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1994), a panel of this Court explicitly held that "discretionary" conduct "not dependent on 'the unique character of the District as the seat of national government'... fall[s] outside the protective scope of the government contacts doctrine."
Summary of this case from Akhmetshin v. BrowderIn Bechtel & Cole v. Graceland Broad. Inc., 18 F.3d 953 (D.C. Cir. 1994), a panel of this Court explicitly held that "discretionary" conduct "not dependent on ‘the unique character of the District as the seat of national government’... fall[s] outside the protective scope of the government contacts doctrine."
Summary of this case from Akhmetshin v. BrowderIn Dowds v. Clinton, 18 F.3d 953 (Table), 1994 WL 85040 (D.C. Cir. 1994), 305 U.S. App. D.C. 193, the Circuit Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia held that pursuant to the Court's decision in Darby, the plaintiff was not required to resort to the Military Board of Correction prior to filing suit in federal court.
Summary of this case from Crane v. Secretary of the ArmyFull title:Bechtel Cole, v. Graceland Broadcasting Inc
Court:United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit
Date published: Mar 9, 1994
None involved media events. They instead involved direct contacts: "personal appearances" before the…
Akhmetshin v. BrowderNone involved media events. They instead involved direct contacts: "personal appearances" before the…