District of Columbia· 9/7/2017
Jafarzadeh v. Duke
Citations
- 270 F. Supp. 3d 296
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- dismissing mandamus claim “because plaintiffs are able to assert the same claim through the APA”
- dismissing mandamus claim “because plaintiffs are able to assert the same claim through the APA”
- dismissing an ultra vires claim because a plaintiff able to assert a claim under the APA “cannot obtain relief . . . through the Court’s inherent power to review ultra vires agency actions”
- “The twin doctrines of mootness and ripeness can be described as ‘standing set in a time frame: The requisite personal interest that must exist at the commencement of litigation 5 (standing) must continue throughout its existence (mootness
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Judge John D. Bates
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Aracely v. NielsenD.C. Circuit· 2018-07-03· cited 72×
- Saget v. TrumpE.D. New York· 2019-04-11· cited 27×
- Balde v. DukeDistrict of Columbia· 2018-07-03
- O.A. v. TrumpDistrict of Columbia· 2019-08-02
- Miriyeva v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration ServicesDistrict of Columbia· 2019-12-21
- Selvin Leonardy Solis Meza v. CissnaDistrict of Columbia· 2020-02-07
- Ruseva v. TaylorDistrict of Columbia· 2020-09-22
- Haider v. United States Department of Homeland SecurityDistrict of Columbia· 2021-12-01
- Barrera v. United States Department of Homeland SecurityDistrict of Columbia· 2022-01-11
- Manzoor v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesDistrict of Columbia· 2022-05-03
- Dean v. United States Department of Homeland SecurityDistrict of Columbia· 2022-07-15
- Siddiqui v. CissnaS.D. Indiana· 2018-12-07
- Sindt v. United States Citizenship and Immigration ServicesDistrict of Columbia· 2023-03-01
- Lewis v. United States Parole CommissionDistrict of Columbia· 2024-07-29
- Afghan and Iraqi Allies v. PompeoDistrict of Columbia· 2025-06-06
- Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs EnforcementDistrict of Columbia· 2025-12-17
- Council for Opportunity in Education v. U.S. Department of EducationDistrict of Columbia· 2026-05-27
Cites
47 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 149,772×
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court· 2007-05-21· cited 146,720×
- Lujan v. Defenders of WildlifeSupreme Court· 1992-06-12· cited 24,791×
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 14,284×
- Spokeo, Inc. v. RobinsSupreme Court· 2016-05-16· cited 7,043×
- Friends of the Earth, Inc. v. Laidlaw Environmental Services (TOC), Inc.Supreme Court· 2000-01-12· cited 6,373×
- Lujan v. National Wildlife FederationSupreme Court· 1990-06-27· cited 5,583×
- Village of Arlington Heights v. Metropolitan Housing Development Corp.Supreme Court· 1977-01-11· cited 4,496×
- Zadvydas v. DavisSupreme Court· 2001-06-28· cited 3,847×
- Bennett v. SpearSupreme Court· 1997-03-19· cited 3,786×
- Powell v. McCormackSupreme Court· 1969-10-13· cited 3,053×
- Arizonans for Official English v. ArizonaSupreme Court· 1997-03-03· cited 2,323×
- Charles Kowal v. MCI Communications CorporationD.C. Circuit· 1994-03-01· cited 1,980×
- MedImmune, Inc. v. Genentech, Inc.Supreme Court· 2007-01-09· cited 1,786×
- Church of Scientology of California v. United StatesSupreme Court· 1992-11-16· cited 1,710×
- Trudeau v. Federal Trade CommissionD.C. Circuit· 2006-07-28· cited 1,112×
- Grand Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police v. AshcroftDistrict of Columbia· 2001-08-14· cited 854×
- Reiter v. CooperSupreme Court· 1993-03-08· cited 660×
- Horne v. FloresSupreme Court· 2009-06-25· cited 617×
- McNary v. Haitian Refugee Center, Inc.Supreme Court· 1991-02-20· cited 609×
Other cases named Jafarzadeh v. Duke
1 other CourtListener record shares this case 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.