10 Cited authorities

Munaf v. Geren
553 U.S. 674 (2008) Cited 1,644 times 5 Legal Analyses
Holding that civilian U.S. citizens held in U.S. military custody in Iraq could petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court
Yuhasz v. Brush Wellman, Inc.
341 F.3d 559 (6th Cir. 2003) Cited 596 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that the complaint at issue did not comply with Rule 9(b) inasmuch as it failed to "identify specific parties, contracts, or fraudulent acts"
Caribbean Broadcasting System, Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC
148 F.3d 1080 (D.C. Cir. 1998) Cited 350 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that "the prolonged nature of a case does not itself affect whether the plaintiff may amend its complaint," and that "artless drafting of a complaint should not allow for the artful dodging of a claim"
James V. Hurson Associates, Inc. v. Glickman
229 F.3d 277 (D.C. Cir. 2000) Cited 88 times
Holding that the defendant had filed no answer to the original complaint, thus the plaintiff had an absolute right to amend its original complaint once at any time before the defendant filed a responsive pleading
Nwachukwu v. Rooney
362 F. Supp. 2d 183 (D.D.C. 2005) Cited 30 times
Holding that a motion to strike is for "redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter," Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), and should not be used as "a vehicle to penalize parties and prevent the court from considering a party's motion."
Munaf v. Geren
482 F.3d 582 (D.C. Cir. 2007) Cited 4 times
No. 06-5324. Argued February 16, 2007. Decided April 6, 2007. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Columbia (No. 06cv01455). Joseph Margulies argued the cause for appellants. With him on the briefs were Jonathan L. Hafetz, Aziz Z. Huq, Eric M. Freedman, and Susan L. Burke. Gregory G. Garre, Deputy Solicitor General, U.S. Department of Justice, argued the cause for appellees. With him on the brief were Peter D. Keisler, Assistant Attorney General, Jeffrey A. Taylor, U.S
Willis v. Collins
989 F.2d 187 (5th Cir. 1993) Cited 13 times
Allowing a section 2254 challenge to current state sentence enhanced by allegedly unconstitutional prior state convictions for which the sentences had expired
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,528 times 341 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 90,557 times 91 Legal Analyses
Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint
Section 2242 - Application
28 U.S.C. § 2242 Cited 3,671 times 4 Legal Analyses
Requiring § 2241 petitioner to name "the person who has custody over" petitioner as respondent

Munaf et al v. Harvey et al

10 Cited authorities

Holding that civilian U.S. citizens held in U.S. military custody in Iraq could petition for a writ of habeas corpus in federal district court

Holding that the complaint at issue did not comply with Rule 9(b) inasmuch as it failed to "identify specific parties, contracts, or fraudulent acts"

Holding that "the prolonged nature of a case does not itself affect whether the plaintiff may amend its complaint," and that "artless drafting of a complaint should not allow for the artful dodging of a claim"

Holding that the defendant had filed no answer to the original complaint, thus the plaintiff had an absolute right to amend its original complaint once at any time before the defendant filed a responsive pleading

Holding that a motion to strike is for "redundant, immaterial, impertinent or scandalous matter," Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(f), and should not be used as "a vehicle to penalize parties and prevent the court from considering a party's motion."

Allowing a section 2254 challenge to current state sentence enhanced by allegedly unconstitutional prior state convictions for which the sentences had expired

Holding that "a determination of a factual issue made by a State court shall be presumed to be correct" and "[t]he applicant shall have the burden of rebutting the presumption of correctness by clear and convincing evidence"

Finding that, per N.Y. C.P.L.R. § 1024, New York law provides a more forgiving principle for relation back in the context of naming John Doe defendants described with particularity in the complaint

Requiring § 2241 petitioner to name "the person who has custody over" petitioner as respondent