Clampitt v. American University

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• “[C]oncluding that the [Washington Post] article . . . asserting that under Clampitt's 2 watch, WAMU had been ‘awash’ with ‘large operating deficits,’ . . . is capable of defamatory meaning.”
• explaining that to withstand a motion to dismiss, a complaint’s “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level” (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)
• employee policy manuals were no more than guidance and did not constitute “terms of an implied contract”
• “[T]he mere possibility of disbelief is not enough to avoid summary judgment. There must instead be evidence from which a rational factfinder could infer that the [defendants] lied.”
• although question of law, “we think it better to ‘defer hére to the trial court to address the matter in the first instance/ (quoting Concord Enters., Inc. v. Binder, 710 A.2d 219, 223 n.6 (D.C. 1998)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).