D.C. Circuit· 5/28/2010
NATTAH v. Bush
Citations
- 605 F.3d 1052
- 390 U.S. App. D.C. 435
- 30 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1368
- 2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 10965
- 2010 WL 2134281
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 district court erred in not considering the plaintiff’s amended claims when the plaintiff amended the complaint as a matter of right pursuant to Rule 15(a)(1)
- holding that plaintiff need not “plead every conceivable fact” to survive motion to dismiss
- explaining that neither /gbal nor Twombly “require[] a plaintiff to plead every conceivable fact” relevant to breach of contract claim
- noting that Court agrees only “with two of [Nattah’s] claims of error”
- affirming dismissal of qui tam action for failure to file the complaint under seal or comply with any of the other procedural filing requirements
- finding error when the district court failed to refuse to consider claims added as a matter of right
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Sentelle, Henderson, Brown
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.
- Michael Francis and Queue, LLC v. Munir Rehman and HAK, LLCDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals· 2015-02-26· cited 74×
- Badwal v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2015-09-28· cited 60×
- Ramchandra Adhikari v. Daoud & Partners, etFifth Circuit· 2017-01-03· cited 42×
- Nattah v. BushDistrict of Columbia· 2011-03-18· cited 24×
- Ponder v. Chase Home Finance, LLCDistrict of Columbia· 2012-05-23· cited 23×
- Burnett v. American Federation of Government EmployeesDistrict of Columbia· 2015-04-22· cited 22×
- Lannan Found. v. GingoldD.C. Circuit· 2017-10-25· cited 22×
- Segelstrom v. Citibank, N.A.District of Columbia· 2014-11-21· cited 16×
- Carlton Blount v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 2017-06-27· cited 14×
- Winston & Strawn LLP v. the Law Firm of John Arthur EavesDistrict of Columbia· 2014-06-11· cited 11×
- Nabaya v. DudeckDistrict of Columbia· 2014-04-28· cited 10×
- Lott v. Not-For-Profit Hosp. Corp.D.C. Circuit· 2018-07-27· cited 8×
- Sai v. TrumpD.C. Circuit· 2018-09-11· cited 7×
- Cole v. Boeing Inc.District of Columbia· 2012-11-01· cited 3×
- Nattah v. L-3 Communications Titan GroupDistrict of Columbia· 2011-03-18
- Pernice v. BovimDistrict of Columbia· 2016-04-22
- Lannan Foundation v. GingoldDistrict of Columbia· 2017-10-25
- Trusdale v. Mountain Productions, Inc.District of Columbia· 2017-11-22
- Lott v. Not-For-Profit Hospital CorporationDistrict of Columbia· 2018-07-27
- Sai v. TrumpDistrict of Columbia· 2018-09-11
Cites
11 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court· 2009-05-18· cited 149,772×
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court· 2007-05-21· cited 146,720×
- Trudeau v. Federal Trade CommissionD.C. Circuit· 2006-07-28· cited 1,112×
- Harry Kenneth Clark v. Library of CongressD.C. Circuit· 1984-12-24· cited 332×
- Joseph R. Spaziano v. Harry K. Singletary, Secretary, Florida Department of Corrections, Thomas L. Barton, Superintendent, Florida State PrisonEleventh Circuit· 1994-10-07· cited 202×
- In Re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation. Linda Kenneda v. United StatesD.C. Circuit· 1989-08-08· cited 97×
- James v. Hurson Associates, Inc. v. GlickmanD.C. Circuit· 2000-10-24· cited 95×
- Gerber, John E. v. Norton, Gale A.D.C. Circuit· 2002-07-02· cited 88×
- Muir v. Navy Federal Credit UnionD.C. Circuit· 2008-06-20· cited 67×
- Progress Printing Co., Inc. v. NicholsSupreme Court of Virginia· 1992-09-18· cited 42×
- Nattah v. BushDistrict of Columbia· 2008-03-31· cited 11×
Other cases named NATTAH v. Bush
2 other CourtListener records share 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.