§Why CasetextPricing

Richardson v. District of Columbia et al

MOTION to Dismiss

11 Cited authorities

  1. Gonzalez v. Crosby

    545 U.S. 524 (2005)   Cited 6,088 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a Rule 60(b) motion challenging a district court's application of the statute of limitations was not successive

  2. D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman

    460 U.S. 462 (1983)   Cited 10,527 times   4 Legal Analyses
    Holding plaintiffs’ claims that the state court acted arbitrarily and capriciously in denying plaintiffs’ petitions for waiver were inextricably intertwined with the state-court judgment denying their petitions

  3. Allen v. McCurry

    449 U.S. 90 (1980)   Cited 5,756 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that under res judicata, parties may not "relitigat[e] issues that were or could have been raised" in a prior action

  4. Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.

    263 U.S. 413 (1923)   Cited 9,719 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Holding that federal suit was "merely an attempt to get rid of the judgment for alleged errors of law committed" by the state courts

  5. Yamaha Corp. of America v. U.S.

    961 F.2d 245 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 300 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that issue preclusion would be unfair if applied "when the losing party clearly lacked any incentive to litigate the point in the first trial"

  6. Hardison v. Alexander

    655 F.2d 1281 (D.C. Cir. 1981)   Cited 134 times
    Stating that in general res judicata applies even if there has been a subsequent change in the law of the circuit, but noting that there are exceptions for reasons of compelling public policy, such as cases involving important questions of constitutional law

  7. Thomas v. Knight

    No. CIV.A. 02-630(RBW) (D.D.C. Mar. 31, 2003)   Cited 9 times

    Civil Action No. 02-630 (RBW) March 31, 2003 MEMORANDUM OPINION REGGIE B. WALTON, United States District Judge This matter comes before the Court on the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6). The plaintiff's complaint seeks both monetary and equitable relief from the defendants for claims involving the disciplinary proceedings related to the plaintiff's disbarment. Upon consideration of the parties' submissions

  8. Rule 4 - Summons

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 4   Cited 68,636 times   121 Legal Analyses
    Holding that if defendant is not served within 90 days after the complaint is filed, the court—on a motion, or on its own following notice to the plaintiff—must dismiss the action without prejudice against that defendant or order that service be made by a certain time

  9. Section 2244 - Finality of determination

    28 U.S.C. § 2244   Cited 65,174 times   166 Legal Analyses
    Holding that § 2255 incorporates § 2244(b) as part of the certification procedures of § 2244 and instructing that "the district court must dismiss the motion that we have allowed the applicant to file, without reaching the merits of the motion, if the court finds that the movant has not satisfied the requirements for the filing of such a motion."

  10. Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order

    Fed. R. Civ. P. 60   Cited 53,446 times   144 Legal Analyses
    Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

  11. Section 12-301 - Limitation of time for bringing actions

    D.C. Code § 12-301   Cited 902 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Imposing a three-year statute of limitations on actions "for the recovery of personal property"