§Why CasetextPricing

Klayman v. Obama et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION to Supplement the Record

5 Cited authorities

  1. Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents

    403 U.S. 388 (1971)   Cited 25,852 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

  2. U.S. ex Rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers

    238 F. Supp. 2d 270 (D.D.C. 2002)   Cited 93 times
    Holding that surreplies are appropriate to “[a]ddress new matters raised in the [party's] Reply to which a party would be otherwise unable to respond”

  3. Banner Health v. Sebelius

    905 F. Supp. 2d 174 (D.D.C. 2012)   Cited 35 times
    Resolving renewed motion to dismiss or for judgment on the pleadings

  4. Crummey v. Soc. Sec. Admin.

    794 F. Supp. 2d 46 (D.D.C. 2011)   Cited 36 times
    Granting summary judgment on similar Privacy Act claim where plaintiff "failed to present even a scintilla of competent evidence suggesting that the SSA's records are, in actuality, materially inaccurate or incomplete"

  5. In re Papst Licensing GmbH & Co. KG Litigation

    932 F. Supp. 2d 14 (D.D.C. 2013)   Cited 1 times

    Misc. Action No. 07–493 (RMC). 2013-03-19 In re PAPST LICENSING GMBH & CO. KG LITIGATION. This document relates to All Cases. Steven John Routh, Timothy Vann Pearce, Jr., Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe, LLP, Washington, DC, for Fujifilm Corporation. Daniel R. Cherry, Welsh & Katz, Ltd., James P. White, John Aron Carnahan, Joseph E. Cwik, Walter J. Kawula, Jr., William Francis Demarest, Jr., Yasmin S. Schnayer, Husch Blackwell, LLP, Chicago, IL, for Papst Licensing GMBH & Co. KG. ROSEMARY M. COLLYER