50 Cited authorities

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett
477 U.S. 317 (1986) Cited 220,007 times 41 Legal Analyses
Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"
Harlow v. Fitzgerald
457 U.S. 800 (1982) Cited 32,036 times 11 Legal Analyses
Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"
Fed. Deposit Ins. v. Meyer
510 U.S. 471 (1994) Cited 7,238 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding a Bivens claim does not lie against federal agencies because, if damages claims were permitted against federal agencies, "there would be no reason for aggrieved parties to bring damages actions against individual officers" and thus "the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost"
Bivens v. Six Unknown Fed. Narcotics Agents
403 U.S. 388 (1971) Cited 26,413 times 27 Legal Analyses
Holding that there is an implied cause of action for money damages against federal officials for violations of the Fourth Amendment
Conley v. Gibson
355 U.S. 41 (1957) Cited 59,120 times 25 Legal Analyses
Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"
Mitchell v. Forsyth
472 U.S. 511 (1985) Cited 9,532 times 9 Legal Analyses
Holding that some orders denying summary judgment constitute " 'final decisions' " under the collateral order doctrine
United States v. Testan
424 U.S. 392 (1976) Cited 2,222 times
Holding that Back Pay Act does not provide a remedy for misclassified federal employees
Department of Justice v. Tax Analysts
492 U.S. 136 (1989) Cited 844 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that documents are only “agency records” within the meaning of FOIA if the agency both “create or obtain” the documents and “control” them
Lehman v. Nakshian
453 U.S. 156 (1981) Cited 1,034 times
Holding that exceptions to the limitations and conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued "are not to be implied"
McKart v. United States
395 U.S. 185 (1969) Cited 1,616 times 1 Legal Analyses
Holding that issue which involved statutory interpretation did not require exhaustion because it required no agency expertise, was not a matter of discretion, and would not have been aided by any additional administrative action
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 357,280 times 950 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 335,102 times 160 Legal Analyses
Holding a party may move for summary judgment on any part of any claim or defense in the lawsuit
Rule 4 - Summons
Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 Cited 72,180 times 128 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 552 - Public information; agency rules, opinions, orders, records, and proceedings
5 U.S.C. § 552 Cited 12,367 times 558 Legal Analyses
Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party

Thomas v. Federal Aviation Administration et al

50 Cited authorities

Holding that a movant's summary judgment motion should be granted "against a [nonmovant] who fails to make a showing sufficient to establish the existence of an element essential to that party's case, and on which that party will bear the burden of proof at trial"

Holding that public officials are entitled to a "qualified immunity" from "liability for civil damages insofar as their conduct does not violate clearly established . . . rights of which a reasonable person would have known"

Holding a Bivens claim does not lie against federal agencies because, if damages claims were permitted against federal agencies, "there would be no reason for aggrieved parties to bring damages actions against individual officers" and thus "the deterrent effects of the Bivens remedy would be lost"

Holding that there is an implied cause of action for money damages against federal officials for violations of the Fourth Amendment

Holding that "a complaint should not be dismissed for failure to state a claim unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts in support of his claim which would entitle him to relief"

Holding that some orders denying summary judgment constitute " 'final decisions' " under the collateral order doctrine

Holding that Back Pay Act does not provide a remedy for misclassified federal employees

Holding that documents are only “agency records” within the meaning of FOIA if the agency both “create or obtain” the documents and “control” them

Holding that exceptions to the limitations and conditions upon which the Government consents to be sued "are not to be implied"

Holding that issue which involved statutory interpretation did not require exhaustion because it required no agency expertise, was not a matter of discretion, and would not have been aided by any additional administrative action

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 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

Holding that the Court's entering of a “Stipulation and Order” approving the parties' terms of dismissal did not amount to a “court-ordered consent decree” that would render the plaintiff the prevailing party