District of Columbia· 3/30/2004
Schrader v. Tomlinson
Citations
- 311 F. Supp. 2d 21
- 2004 WL 715836
How courts have described this case
Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.
- finding that pursuant to “Little Tucker Act,” Equal Pay Act claim must be brought in Court of Federal Claims
- stating that “it is well established” that EPA claims must satisfy the jurisdictional requirements of the Tucker Act
- “[A] plaintiff may not rely on the continuing violation theory where she was aware of the discriminatory conduct at the time it occurred.”
- “Because the two motions are analyzed under the same standard, a court 25 considering a motion for judgment on the pleadings may give leave to amend and ‘may dismiss causes 2 (C.D. Cal. 2004); see also Bly-Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001
Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).
Judges: Walton
Read full opinion on CourtListenerCited by
13 cases in this archive cite this case.
- Bowe-Connor v. ShinsekiDistrict of Columbia· 2012-02-24· cited 47×
- Powell v. CastanedaDistrict of Columbia· 2005-09-26· cited 28×
- Faison v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2009-10-15· cited 25×
- Rand v. Secretary of the TreasuryDistrict of Columbia· 2011-10-06· cited 14×
- Short v. ChertoffDistrict of Columbia· 2007-11-26· cited 12×
- Moore v. ChertoffDistrict of Columbia· 2006-07-07· cited 12×
- Thong v. Andre Chreky SalonDistrict of Columbia· 2009-07-13· cited 6×
- Dreiband v. NielsenD.C. Circuit· 2018-08-03· cited 5×
- Green v. DOD Dependent Schools-EuropeDistrict of Columbia· 2007-10-01
- Faison v. Government of the District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2009-10-15
- Farzam v. IsaacsonDistrict of Columbia· 2015-12-11
- Dreiband v. KellyDistrict of Columbia· 2018-08-03
- Melkumyan v. PowerDistrict of Columbia· 2022-07-22
Cites
19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.
- Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc.Supreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 135,235×
- Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, Administratrix of the Estate of CatrettSupreme Court· 1986-06-25· cited 119,442×
- Brown v. General Services AdministrationSupreme Court· 1976-06-01· cited 1,934×
- Bazemore v. FridaySupreme Court· 1986-07-01· cited 677×
- Jane Doe v. United States Department of JusticeD.C. Circuit· 1985-03-01· cited 471×
- Jacqueline P. Taylor v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation and Ricki Helfer, Chairman, FdicD.C. Circuit· 1997-12-23· cited 376×
- James E. Brown v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary of the ArmyD.C. Circuit· 1985-11-15· cited 288×
- Barbour, Joyce A. v. Browner, Carol M.D.C. Circuit· 1999-07-13· cited 254×
- Cathy S. NEUREN, Appellant, v. ADDUCI, MASTRIANI, MEEKS & SCHILL, Et Al., AppelleesD.C. Circuit· 1995-01-17· cited 215×
- Thompson v. SawyerD.C. Circuit· 1982-04-27· cited 180×
- Day v. D.C. Department of Consumer & Regulatory AffairsDistrict of Columbia· 2002-03-12· cited 97×
- Bancoult v. McNamaraDistrict of Columbia· 2002-09-30· cited 35×
- Fowler v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia· 2000-11-20· cited 33×
- Williams v. MunozDistrict of Columbia· 2000-07-19· cited 28×
- Albritton v. KantorDistrict of Columbia· 1996-08-15· cited 27×
- Kilpatrick v. RileyDistrict of Columbia· 2000-04-27· cited 23×
- Weber v. HurtgenDistrict of Columbia· 2003-09-29· cited 18×
- Gary v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit AuthorityDistrict of Columbia· 1995-05-11· cited 16×
- Shepard v. AdamsDistrict of Columbia· 1987-05-08· cited 6×
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.