District of Columbia· 12/3/2001
M.K. v. Tenet
Citations
- 196 F. Supp. 2d 8
- 2001 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 22888
- 2001 WL 1795163
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- concluding that a plaintiff need not anticipate and rebut a statute of limitations argument in the complaint
- finding statement that image showed minor engaged in oral sex and genital to genital contact sufficient to establish probable cause
- “[I]f the arguments addressed herein were originally raised (i.e., two years ago), it would have prevented the court from having to reconsider its . . . Memorandum Opinion and supplemental order.”
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Urbina
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
17 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Cobell v. NortonDistrict of Columbia· 2004-10-22· cited 207×
- Cobell v. NortonDistrict of Columbia· 2005-02-07· cited 158×
- Livingston Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc. v. Jefferson Downs Corp.M.D. Louisiana· 2002-09-23· cited 105×
- M.K. v. TenetDistrict of Columbia· 2002-07-30· cited 46×
- Moore v. HartmanDistrict of Columbia· 2004-08-30· cited 36×
- De Sousa v. Department of StateDistrict of Columbia· 2012-01-05· cited 27×
- United States v. Dyncorp International, LLCDistrict of Columbia· 2017-05-19· cited 23×
- Evans v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2005-09-27· cited 19×
- St. Mary's Area Water Authority v. St. Paul Fire & Marine InsuranceM.D. Pennsylvania· 2007-02-02· cited 18×
- United States Ex Rel. Pogue v. Diabetes Treatment Centers of America, Inc.District of Columbia· 2008-09-19· cited 15×
- Smith v. HarveyDistrict of Columbia· 2008-03-21· cited 10×
- Peter B. v. Central Intelligence AgencyDistrict of Columbia· 2009-06-01
- Peter B. v. Central Intelligence AgencyDistrict of Columbia· 2016-03-30
- Gill v. Department of JusticeDistrict of Columbia· 2016-07-22
- McKoy v. MabusDistrict of Columbia· 2019-01-31
- Cook Inlet Tribal Council, Inc. v. MandreganDistrict of Columbia· 2019-08-14
- U.S. v. SyphersD. New Hampshire· 2003-12-18
Cites
24 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Board of Regents of State Colleges v. RothSupreme Court· 1972-06-29· cited 14,284×
- McNutt v. General Motors Acceptance Corp.Supreme Court· 1936-05-18· cited 4,144×
- Siegert v. GilleySupreme Court· 1991-05-23· cited 2,725×
- Cafeteria & Restaurant Workers Union, Local 473 v. McElroySupreme Court· 1961-10-09· cited 2,289×
- FW/PBS, Inc. v. City of DallasSupreme Court· 1990-01-10· cited 2,054×
- Myrna O'Dell Firestone v. Leonard K. FirestoneD.C. Circuit· 1996-02-16· cited 1,378×
- Lauro Lines S.R.L. v. ChasserSupreme Court· 1989-05-22· cited 268×
- O'Donnell, Philip v. Barry, Marion S.D.C. Circuit· 1998-07-28· cited 181×
- Robert James Richards v. Milton Stanley Mileski (Two Cases)D.C. Circuit· 1981-08-21· cited 135×
- Mobil Oil Exploration & Producing Southeast, Inc. v. United Distribution Cos.Supreme Court· 1991-01-08· cited 128×
- Stehney v. PerryThird Circuit· 1996-12-03· cited 128×
- Tijerina v. WaltersD.C. Circuit· 1987-06-30· cited 119×
- Childers v. SlaterDistrict of Columbia· 2000-09-18· cited 108×
- David W. TOM, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Margaret HECKLER, Secretary of Health and Human Services, Defendant-AppelleeSeventh Circuit· 1985-12-11· cited 100×
- Maytrude Jones, Administratrix of Estate of Alexander L. Jones, Dec., Maytrude Jones v. Rogers Memorial HospitalD.C. Circuit· 1971-02-04· cited 75×
- National Trust for Historic Preservation v. Department of StateDistrict of Columbia· 1993-09-14· cited 51×
- John Doe v. Richard B. Cheney, Secretary of Department of DefenseD.C. Circuit· 1989-09-12· cited 47×
- In re Executive Office of the PresidentD.C. Circuit· 2000-05-26· cited 46×
- United States v. Charles G. Rose IIID.C. Circuit· 1994-07-12· cited 40×
- United Mine Workers of America 1974 Pension Trust v. Pittston Co.District of Columbia· 1992-04-29· cited 40×
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.