33 Cited authorities

D.C. Court of Appeals v. Feldman
460 U.S. 462 (1983) Cited 10,562 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
Parklane Hosiery Co. v. Shore
439 U.S. 322 (1979) Cited 4,239 times 8 Legal Analyses
Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair
Montana v. United States
440 U.S. 147 (1979) Cited 3,592 times 3 Legal Analyses
Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"
Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co.
263 U.S. 413 (1923) Cited 9,754 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
United States v. Mendoza
464 U.S. 154 (1984) Cited 568 times 2 Legal Analyses
Holding in an immigration context that the government could not be collaterally estopped from litigating a constitutional issue concerning its administration of the Nationality Act, adjudicated against it in a prior action brought by a different party
Neal v. Kelly
963 F.2d 453 (D.C. Cir. 1992) Cited 602 times
Holding that the district court abused its discretion in converting a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion when the court did not inform the pro se prisoner of the consequences of failing to file a Rule 56(e) affidavit
Cresswell v. Sullivan Cromwell
922 F.2d 60 (2d Cir. 1990) Cited 531 times
Holding that a United States citizen domiciled abroad cannot ever be diverse from any opposing party
Apotex, Inc. v. Food Drug Admin
393 F.3d 210 (D.C. Cir. 2004) Cited 177 times
Holding that, for claims preclusion purposes, "[w]hether two cases implicate the same cause of action turns on whether they share the same 'nucleus of facts'"
Fox v. Strickland
837 F.2d 507 (D.C. Cir. 1988) Cited 263 times
Holding that a district court "must take pains to advise a pro se party of the consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion" and that the notice "should include an explanation that the failure to respond ... may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case"
Richardson v. D.C. Court of Appeals
83 F.3d 1513 (D.C. Cir. 1996) Cited 107 times
Holding the district court lacked jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman to consider a claim attacking the suspension of an attorney's bar license
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 346,412 times 923 Legal Analyses
Granting the court discretion to exclude matters outside the pleadings presented to the court in defense of a motion to dismiss
Rule 56 - Summary Judgment
Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 Cited 328,985 times 158 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Section 2254 - State custody; remedies in Federal courts
28 U.S.C. § 2254 Cited 204,690 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"
Section 2241 - Power to grant writ
28 U.S.C. § 2241 Cited 80,545 times 55 Legal Analyses
Granting courts authority to determine whether detention is "in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States"
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 69,154 times 122 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
Section 2244 - Finality of determination
28 U.S.C. § 2244 Cited 65,347 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."
Rule 60 - Relief from a Judgment or Order
Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 Cited 53,643 times 146 Legal Analyses
Granting relief from the operation of a judgment
Section 1985 - Conspiracy to interfere with civil rights
42 U.S.C. § 1985 Cited 19,853 times 10 Legal Analyses
Concerning conspiracies to obstruct justice or intimidate a party, witness, or juror
Section 12-301 - Limitation of time for bringing actions
D.C. Code § 12-301 Cited 904 times 3 Legal Analyses
Imposing a three-year statute of limitations on actions "for the recovery of personal property"
Rule 82 - Jurisdiction and Venue Unaffected
Fed. R. Civ. P. 82 Cited 478 times 2 Legal Analyses
Stating that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of the district courts”

Richardson v. District of Columbia et al

33 Cited authorities

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

Holding that district courts have discretion to refuse to apply offensive non-mutual collateral estoppel against a defendant if such an application of the doctrine would be unfair

Holding that "once an issue is actually and necessarily determined by a court of competent jurisdiction, that determination is conclusive in subsequent suits based on a different cause of action involving a party to the prior litigation"

Holding that federal suit was "merely an attempt to get rid of the judgment for alleged errors of law committed" by the state courts

Holding in an immigration context that the government could not be collaterally estopped from litigating a constitutional issue concerning its administration of the Nationality Act, adjudicated against it in a prior action brought by a different party

Holding that the district court abused its discretion in converting a motion to dismiss into a summary judgment motion when the court did not inform the pro se prisoner of the consequences of failing to file a Rule 56(e) affidavit

Holding that a United States citizen domiciled abroad cannot ever be diverse from any opposing party

Holding that, for claims preclusion purposes, "[w]hether two cases implicate the same cause of action turns on whether they share the same 'nucleus of facts'"

Holding that a district court "must take pains to advise a pro se party of the consequences of failing to respond to a dispositive motion" and that the notice "should include an explanation that the failure to respond ... may result in the district court granting the motion and dismissing the case"

Holding the district court lacked jurisdiction under Rooker-Feldman to consider a claim attacking the suspension of an attorney's bar license

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

Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit

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"

Granting courts authority to determine whether detention is "in violation of the . . . laws . . . of the United States"

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

Granting relief from the operation of a judgment

Concerning conspiracies to obstruct justice or intimidate a party, witness, or juror

Imposing a three-year statute of limitations on actions "for the recovery of personal property"

Stating that the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure “do not extend or limit the jurisdiction of the district courts”