Kiska Const. v. Washington Metro. Area Tran

2 Citing briefs

  1. Fiberlight, Llc v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

    MOTION to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction Plaintiff's Amended Complaint

    Filed January 13, 2017

    Courts interpret Section 80 as incorporating the distinction between discretionary and ministerial functions. See, e.g., KiSKA, 321 F.3d at 1158; see also Dant v. District of Columbia, 829 F.2d 69, 74 (D.C. Cir. 1987). Courts developed a two-part test to determine what WMATA activities are discretionary versus ministerial.

  2. Pfeiffer v. Spellings et al

    REPLY to opposition to motion re MOTION for Summary Judgment

    Filed March 14, 2008

    KiSKA Constr. Corp., Us.A. v. Wash. Metro. Area Trans. Auth., 321 F.3d 1151, 1163 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (holding that if contract is "susceptible to more than one reasonable interpretation, the court must find that the contract is ambiguous as a matter of law.") (quotations omitted).