§Why CasetextPricing

Sherley et al v. Sebelius et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Leave to File Brief Amicus Curiae

7 Cited authorities

  1. Weinstock v. Columbia University

    224 F.3d 33 (2d Cir. 2000)   Cited 2,466 times
    Holding that "unsupported allegations do not create a material issue of fact"

  2. Gandee v. Glaser

    785 F. Supp. 684 (S.D. Ohio 1992)   Cited 460 times
    In Laser, an alleged patent infringer moved the court to pierce the patent holder's attorney-client privilege based on a claim that the communications at issue were in furtherance of a fraud on the United States Patent Office.

  3. Walter O. Boswell Memorial Hosp. v. Heckler

    749 F.2d 788 (D.C. Cir. 1984)   Cited 196 times
    Holding that review could not go forward on a partial record where doing so "would be fundamentally unfair" because agency had withheld significant information

  4. Lamprecht v. F.C.C

    958 F.2d 382 (D.C. Cir. 1992)   Cited 45 times
    Discussing Steele

  5. Cobell v. Norton

    246 F. Supp. 2d 59 (D.D.C. 2003)   Cited 15 times

    Civil Action Number 96-1285 (RCL) March 3, 2003 J. Christopher Kohn, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Commercial Litigation Branch, Washington, DC, Brian L. Ferrell, U.S. Dept. of Justice, ENRD, Washington, DC, Mark E. Nagel, Robert Craig Lawrence, Scott Sutherland Harris, U.S. Atty.'s Office, Washington, DC, Charles Walter Findlay, III, Washington, DC, Henry A. Azar, Jr., U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Programs Branch, Washington, DC, Seth Brandon Shapiro, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civ. Div., Washington, DC

  6. High Sierra Hikers Ass'n v. Powell

    150 F. Supp. 2d 1023 (N.D. Cal. 2001)   Cited 9 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Striking summary judgment declarations as extra-record evidence that is inadmissible in connection with the final agency action except to the extent they are explanatory of those actions

  7. Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District

    Case No. 04cv2688 (M.D. Pa. Oct. 24, 2005)

    Case No. 04cv2688. October 24, 2005 MEMORANDUM AND ORDER JOHN JONES III, District Judge THE BACKGROUND OF THIS ORDER IS AS FOLLOWS: Pending before the Court is a Motion to Strike "Brief of Amici Curiae Biologists and Other Scientists in Support of Defendants" and "Brief of Amicus Curiae, the Discovery Institute" ("the Motion") (doc. 265) filed by Plaintiffs on October 18, 2005. The Motion will be granted in part and denied in part. In the Motion, Plaintiffs submit that David DeWolf, a senior fellow