67 Cited authorities

Swierkiewicz v. Sorema N.A.
534 U.S. 506 (2002) Cited 16,766 times 20 Legal Analyses
Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"
Albright v. Oliver
510 U.S. 266 (1994) Cited 12,411 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution
Village of Willowbrook v. Olech
528 U.S. 562 (2000) Cited 6,369 times 12 Legal Analyses
Holding that a class of one could challenge different treatment under the Equal Protection Clause where treatment was alleged to be "irrational and wholly arbitrary"
Hishon v. King Spalding
467 U.S. 69 (1984) Cited 12,436 times 7 Legal Analyses
Holding Title VII applies to selection for non-employee positions if consideration for that position can be regarded as one of "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" of a covered job
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer
510 U.S. 471 (1994) Cited 7,007 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"
Scheuer v. Rhodes
416 U.S. 232 (1974) Cited 22,288 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity
Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 58,508 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"
Leatherman v. Tarrant County Narcotics Intelligence & Coordination Unit
507 U.S. 163 (1993) Cited 5,112 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities
Warth v. Seldin
422 U.S. 490 (1975) Cited 11,866 times 14 Legal Analyses
Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"
Hughes v. Rowe
449 U.S. 5 (1980) Cited 6,617 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that pleadings drafted by pro se litigants should be held to a lesser standard than those drafted by lawyers since "[a]n unrepresented litigant should not be punished for his failure to recognize subtle factual or legal deficiencies in his claims"
Rule 12 - Defenses and Objections: When and How Presented; Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings; Consolidating Motions; Waiving Defenses; Pretrial Hearing
Fed. R. Civ. P. 12 Cited 345,981 times 922 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 8 - General Rules of Pleading
Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 Cited 156,250 times 193 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Section 2671 - Definitions
28 U.S.C. § 2671 Cited 9,368 times 6 Legal Analyses
Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "
Section 2675 - Disposition by federal agency as prerequisite; evidence
28 U.S.C. § 2675 Cited 7,076 times 1 Legal Analyses
Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement
Section 2679 - Exclusiveness of remedy
28 U.S.C. § 2679 Cited 5,334 times 5 Legal Analyses
Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees
Section Amendment XIV - Rights Guaranteed: Privileges and Immunities of Citizenship, Due Process, and Equal Protection
U.S. Const. amend. XIV Cited 11,428 times 3 Legal Analyses
Prohibiting deprivations by “State”
Section Amendment I - Religion and Expression
U.S. Const. amend. I Cited 7,097 times 3 Legal Analyses
Recognizing the "right to petition the Government for redress of grievances"
Section 1364 - Direct actions against insurers of members of diplomatic missions and their families
28 U.S.C. § 1364 Cited 63 times
Allowing direct suit against the insurers of certain diplomatic personnel

Miango et al v. Democratic Republic of Congo et al

67 Cited authorities

Holding with regard to a 67-year-old plaintiff and a 59-year-old comparator that " difference of eight years between the age of the person discharged and his replacement . . . is not insignificant"

Holding that the plaintiff’s § 1983 claim failed where the plaintiff failed to establish that he was deprived of a substantive due process right secured by the Constitution

Holding that a class of one could challenge different treatment under the Equal Protection Clause where treatment was alleged to be "irrational and wholly arbitrary"

Holding Title VII applies to selection for non-employee positions if consideration for that position can be regarded as one of "terms, conditions, or privileges of employment" of a covered job

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"

Holding that executive branch officers had qualified immunity

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"

Holding that there is no heightened pleading requirement in § 1983 suits against municipalities

Holding that Article III requires plaintiffs "to establish that, in fact, the asserted injury was the consequence of the defendants' actions"

Holding that pleadings drafted by pro se litigants should be held to a lesser standard than those drafted by lawyers since "[a]n unrepresented litigant should not be punished for his failure to recognize subtle factual or legal deficiencies in his claims"

Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss

Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."

Defining "[e]mployee of the government" for purposes of the FTCA as "officers or employees of any federal agency "

Setting forth FTCA's administrative exhaustion requirement

Granting tort immunity to federal agency employees

Prohibiting deprivations by “State”

Recognizing the "right to petition the Government for redress of grievances"

Allowing direct suit against the insurers of certain diplomatic personnel