§Why CasetextPricing

ASCOM HASLER MAILING v. USPS

Memorandum in opposition to re

31 Cited authorities

  1. Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer

    510 U.S. 471 (1994)   Cited 6,971 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding a Bivens claim does not lie against federal agencies because, if damages claims were permitted against federal agencies, "there would be no reason for aggrieved parties to bring damages actions against individual officers" and thus "the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost"

  2. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents

    403 U.S. 388 (1971)   Cited 25,788 times   27 Legal Analyses
    Holding that there is an implied cause of action for money damages against federal officials for violations of the Fourth Amendment

  3. Concrete Pipe Prods. v. Constr. Laborers Trust

    508 U.S. 602 (1993)   Cited 1,490 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that withdrawal liability as applied to Concrete Pipe, the employer, did not violate the Fifth Amendment because the imposition of withdrawal liability was clearly rational inasmuch as the employer's liability was based on a proportion of its contributions during its participation in the plan

  4. United States v. Testan

    424 U.S. 392 (1976)   Cited 2,197 times
    Holding that Back Pay Act does not provide a remedy for misclassified federal employees

  5. United States v. Winstar Corp.

    518 U.S. 839 (1996)   Cited 529 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the enactment of FIRREA breached certain government contracts

  6. Phillips v. Washington Legal Foundation

    524 U.S. 156 (1998)   Cited 380 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the "interest income generated by funds held in IOLTA accounts [client accounts] is the `private property' of the owner of the principal"

  7. Webb's Fabulous Pharmacies, Inc. v. Beckwith

    449 U.S. 155 (1980)   Cited 538 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that States may not, "by ipse dixit, ... transform private property into public property without compensation"

  8. Brown v. Legal Foundation of Wash

    538 U.S. 216 (2003)   Cited 232 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that interest on interpleaded funds exacted by the government could be a per se taking

  9. Andrus v. Allard

    444 U.S. 51 (1979)   Cited 420 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the government’s restriction on an individual’s ability to dispose of his or her private property did not amount to a taking because the individual retained other rights associated with his or her property

  10. Educadores Puertorriquenos v. Hernandez

    367 F.3d 61 (1st Cir. 2004)   Cited 583 times
    Holding that in civil rights actions, the plaintiff need not meet a heightened pleading standard, but rather must simply comply with Rule 8's minimal “who did what to whom, when, where, and why” requirements.”

  11. Rule 30 - Depositions by Oral Examination

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 30   Cited 16,027 times   126 Legal Analyses
    Upholding a district court's decision not to consider the plaintiff's deposition errata sheets in opposition to a motion for summary judgment when they were untimely

  12. Rule 408 - Compromise Offers and Negotiations

    Fed. R. Evid. 408   Cited 4,249 times   43 Legal Analyses
    Holding that premature deliberations constituted an internal jury influence subject to the post-verdict restrictions of Rule 606(b)

  13. Section 28-3502 - Special promise to answer for debt or default of another

    D.C. Code § 28-3502   Cited 58 times
    Stating that the statute of frauds applies to "a contract or sale of real estate, or any interest in or concerning it"