§Why CasetextPricing

CHEEKS et al v. FORT MYER CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION, et al

MOTION to Dismiss Plaintiffs' First Amended Complaint

21 Cited authorities

  1. Ashcroft v. Iqbal

    556 U.S. 662 (2009)   Cited 251,360 times   279 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a claim is plausible where a plaintiff's allegations enable the court to draw a "reasonable inference" the defendant is liable

  2. Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly

    550 U.S. 544 (2007)   Cited 265,336 times   364 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a complaint's allegations should "contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face' "

  3. Ebay Inc. v. Mercexchange, L. L. C.

    547 U.S. 388 (2006)   Cited 3,775 times   130 Legal Analyses
    Holding that traditional four-factor test applies to injunctions against patent infringement

  4. Conley v. Gibson

    355 U.S. 41 (1957)   Cited 58,426 times   25 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

  5. Federal Maritime Comm'n v. South Carolina Ports A.

    535 U.S. 743 (2002)   Cited 549 times   38 Legal Analyses
    Holding that Congress may not use "Article I powers to create court-like administrative tribunals where sovereign immunity does not apply"

  6. United States v. Munoz-Flores

    495 U.S. 385 (1990)   Cited 139 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding adjudication of Origination Clause challenges by the federal courts do not evince lack of respect due political branches of government or lack any judicially manageable standards

  7. Patton Boggs LLP v. Chevron Corp.

    683 F.3d 397 (D.C. Cir. 2012)   Cited 91 times
    Finding no abuse of discretion in denial of reconsideration "[b]ecause Rule 59(e) is not a vehicle to present a new legal theory that was available prior to judgment"

  8. District of Columbia v. Sierra Club

    670 A.2d 354 (D.C. 1996)   Cited 61 times
    In Sierra Club, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that there was a presumption of judicial review that enabled the court to consider whether D.C. law prohibited the Mayor from suspending the District's curbside recycling program.

  9. RSM Prod. Corp. v. Freshfields Bruckhaus Deringer US LLP

    No. 11-7101 (D.C. Cir. Jun. 22, 2012)   Cited 21 times
    Dismissing RICO conspiracy where allegations were "insufficient to establish a plausible inference that Freshfields was aware of anything corrupt relevant to its provision of legal services"

  10. Major v. Plumbers Local Union NO.5

    370 F. Supp. 2d 118 (D.D.C. 2005)   Cited 25 times
    Finding it inappropriate to consider a defense of laches in the context of a motion to dismiss because it would require further factual development

  11. Section 1981 - Equal rights under the law

    42 U.S.C. § 1981   Cited 37,785 times   234 Legal Analyses
    Granting equal rights to "make and enforce contracts" without regard to race

  12. Section 1961 - Definitions

    18 U.S.C. § 1961   Cited 14,910 times   72 Legal Analyses
    Defining what the terms “person” and “enterprise” include

  13. Section 1 - Trusts, etc., in restraint of trade illegal; penalty

    15 U.S.C. § 1   Cited 2,892 times   64 Legal Analyses
    Making illegal "[e]very contract, combination ..., or conspiracy, in restraint of trade"

  14. Section 1-204.04 - Powers of the Council

    D.C. Code § 1-204.04   Cited 11 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a) Subject to the limitations specified in §§ 1-206.01 to 1-206.04, the legislative power granted to the District by this chapter is vested in and shall be exercised by the Council in accordance with this chapter. In addition, except as otherwise provided in this chapter, all functions granted to or imposed upon, or vested in or transferred to the District of Columbia Council, as established by Reorganization Plan No. 3 of 1967, shall be carried out by the Council in accordance with the provisions

  15. Section 1-301.42 - Legislative immunity

    D.C. Code § 1-301.42   Cited 10 times

    For any speech or debate made in the course of their legislative duties, the members of the Council shall not be questioned in any other place. D.C. Code § 1-301.42 June 8, 1976, D.C. Law 1-65, § 3, 22 DCR 7151.

  16. Section 1-301.41 - Definitions

    D.C. Code § 1-301.41   Cited 4 times
    Defining "legislative duties" to include, inter alia, "[e]verything said, written or done during . . . meetings . . . of the Council or any committee of the Council"

  17. Section 1-204.51 - Special rules regarding certain contracts

    D.C. Code § 1-204.51   Cited 3 times   1 Legal Analyses

    (a)Contracts extending beyond one year. - No contract involving expenditures out of an appropriation which is available for more than 1 year shall be made for a period of more than 5 years unless, with respect to a particular contract, the Council, by a two-thirds vote of its members present and voting, authorizes the extension of such period for such contract. Such contracts shall be made pursuant to criteria established by act of the Council. (b)Contracts exceeding certain amount. - (1)In general

  18. Section 2-352.02 - Criteria for Council review of multiyear contracts and contracts in excess of $1 million

    D.C. Code § 2-352.02

    (a) (1) Pursuant to § 1-204.51, before the award of a multiyear contract or a contract in excess of $1 million during a 12-month period, the Mayor or executive independent agency or instrumentality shall submit the proposed contract to the Council for review and approval in accordance with the criteria established in this section. (2) For a contract modification to exercise an option period when the exercise of the option period does not result in a material change in the terms of the underlying