D.C. Circuit· 5/6/2003

Stokes, Billy v. Cross, Steven

Citations

327 F.3d 1210
356 U.S. App. D.C. 73
19 I.E.R. Cas. (BNA) 1781
55 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 576
61 Fed. R. Serv. 370
2003 U.S. App. LEXIS 8554
2003 WL 21005282

How courts have described this case

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

holding that plaintiff was entitled to discovery because he “plead sufficient facts that, if true, would rebut the [Attorney General’s] certification.”
stating that “Rule 8’s liberal pleading standard” charges courts “with construing the complaint ‘so . . . as to do substantial justice’”
observing that District of Columbia law “liberally construes” this first prong
observing that District of Columbia law “liberally construes” this first prong
noting that a court would not err “in dismissing the claim without a hearing where the plaintiff did not allege any facts in his complaint or in any subsequent filing ... that, if true, would demonstrate that [the defendant] had been acting outside the scope of his employment”
the plaintiff need only plead facts that, taken as true, would establish that the defendants’ ac- tions exceeded the scope of their employment

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Rogers, Garland, Silberman

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

94 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

19 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

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.