Fogg, Matthew v. Ashcroft, John

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that the statutory cap applies to each lawsuit, rather than each claim
• explaining that remand is futile when “[o]nly one conclusion would be supportable” (quotation omitted)
• court must review non-discrimination findings “deferentially, upsetting it only if it was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or if it was unsupported by substantial evidence.”
• “[W]e review the MSPB’s assessment deferentially, upsetting it only if it was arbitrary and capricious or an abuse of discretion, or if it was unsupported by substantial evidence.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).