17 Cited authorities

Haines v. Kerner
404 U.S. 519 (1972) Cited 59,572 times
Holding pro se submissions "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"
Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp.
16 F.3d 1271 (D.C. Cir. 1994) Cited 1,815 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that statements of optimism give rise to a strong inference of scienter if they lacked a reasonable basis when made
Mastro v. Potomac Elec. Power Co.
447 F.3d 843 (D.C. Cir. 2006) Cited 429 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding D.C. law applied to a Maryland resident who worked in the District of Columbia
Crisafi v. Holland
655 F.2d 1305 (D.C. Cir. 1981) Cited 585 times
Holding complaint that threatens violence qualifies as malicious
Henthorn v. Dep't of Navy
29 F.3d 682 (D.C. Cir. 1994) Cited 220 times
Holding that prisoner who was legally required to work and whose compensation was set and paid by prison was not employee under FLSA
Lindsey v. U.S.
448 F. Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2006) Cited 120 times
Holding that the Court lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction necessary to enter "a ruling declaring that the defendant has violated the Internal Revenue Code in one or more respects"
Moss v. Stockard
580 A.2d 1011 (D.C. 1990) Cited 150 times
Concluding that employer had interest "indistinguishable from those of any other employer" in communicating reasons for plaintiff's discharge, and that interest was "amply protected by the qualified 'common interest' privilege"
Robinson-Reeder v. Am. Council on Educ
532 F. Supp. 2d 6 (D.D.C. 2008) Cited 65 times
Holding that a Title VII claimant was allowed to challenge an agency's computation of a back-pay award when the EEOC failed to act on the claimant's petition for enforcement within 180 days
Beeton v. D.C
779 A.2d 918 (D.C. 2001) Cited 66 times
Finding plaintiff did not prove actual malice where "there was no evidence presented to establish any negative relationship between [plaintiff and defendants]."
Stith v. Chadbourne Parke, Llp.
160 F. Supp. 2d 1 (D.D.C. 2001) Cited 23 times
Finding that a gender discrimination claim asserted in a proposed amended complaint related back to the original complaint for statute of limitations purposes because the facts that supported the claim were the same as those that supported a race discrimination claim set forth in the original complaint and the same as the facts alleged in the plaintiff's EEOC complaint
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 354,229 times 943 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 160,289 times 196 Legal Analyses
Holding that "[e]very defense to a claim for relief in any pleading must be asserted in the responsive pleading. . . ."
Rule 15 - Amended and Supplemental Pleadings
Fed. R. Civ. P. 15 Cited 92,835 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

Robinson-Reeder v. American Council on Education

17 Cited authorities

Holding pro se submissions "to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers"

Holding that statements of optimism give rise to a strong inference of scienter if they lacked a reasonable basis when made

Holding D.C. law applied to a Maryland resident who worked in the District of Columbia

Holding complaint that threatens violence qualifies as malicious

Holding that prisoner who was legally required to work and whose compensation was set and paid by prison was not employee under FLSA

Holding that the Court lacks the subject-matter jurisdiction necessary to enter "a ruling declaring that the defendant has violated the Internal Revenue Code in one or more respects"

Concluding that employer had interest "indistinguishable from those of any other employer" in communicating reasons for plaintiff's discharge, and that interest was "amply protected by the qualified 'common interest' privilege"

Holding that a Title VII claimant was allowed to challenge an agency's computation of a back-pay award when the EEOC failed to act on the claimant's petition for enforcement within 180 days

Finding plaintiff did not prove actual malice where "there was no evidence presented to establish any negative relationship between [plaintiff and defendants]."

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. . . ."

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