Skip to main content
Fourth Circuit· 9/20/2002

Doe v. Chao

Citations

  • 306 F.3d 170
  • 2002 WL 31096749

How courts have described this case

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

  • explaining that a district court has discretion to refuse supplemental evidence not put before a magistrate judge
  • explaining that a Bivens action cannot be brought against a federal agency or federal agents in their official capacities
  • affirming district court’s denial of class certification because the class members’ “emotional damages [were] likely to be so variable and fact-specific that damages issues overwhelm liability”
  • “[A] Bivens action does not lie against either agencies or officials in their official capacity.”
  • “[A] Bivens action does not lie against . . . officials in their official capacity.” (emphasis omitted)
  • “[A] Bivens action does not lie against . . . officials in their official capacity”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Luttig, Michael, Williams

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

58 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

41 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.