Stokes, Billy v. Cross, Steven

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).