green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 10×
60.8 score
G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2009–2025 ·
…he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.
at p. 878
⚠ not in text
Treatment trajectory · 1999 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1999
2012
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 50 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. R&R Janitorial Painting and Building Services, Inc.
he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Price v. Pearson
he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non- movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Tarquinii v. Harker
he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Cheatham v. Nielsen
he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the 33 non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Psak v. Jewell
he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.
examined
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
2910 Georgia Avenue LLC v. District of Columbia
(3×)
also: Cited as authority (rule)
he definition of the relevant parcel profoundly influences the outcome of takings analysis.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Sensational Smiles, LLC v. Jewel Mullen, Dr.
while the resulting proposals are naturally advanced in the name of the public good, many are surely driven by interestgroup purposes, commonly known as "rentseeking.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Robinson-Reeder v. American Council on Education
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non- movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
Robinson-Reeder v. American Council on Education
he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.
discussed
Cited as authority (verbatim quote)
George Washington University v. District of Columbia
lucas teaches that a buyer's reasonable expectations must be put in the context of the underlying regulatory regime
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Rural Development Innovations Limited v. Marocco
P'ship. v. Dist. of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Khatri v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gallo v. District of Columbia
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 883 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Younes v. U.S. Department of State
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brehm v. Marocco
P’ship. v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr LLP v. Executive Office of the President
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Leblanc v. United States Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Oviosu v. Wolf
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Fitzgerald v. Tillerson
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Gallo v. District of Columbia
(2×)
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 883 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Alexander Bastani v. American Federation of Government Employees, AFL-CIO
Ltd. v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Braden's Folly, LLC v. City of Folly Beach
Intown Props. v. Dist. of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 880 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Barney v. Suggs
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gallo v. District of Columbia
P’ship v. Dist. of Colum., 198 F.3d 874, 883 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
OM 309-311 6TH STREET, LLC v. THE CITY OF UNION CITY
P’ship v. D.C., 198 F.3d 874, 880 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Baskerville v. CBS News Inc.
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Penkoski v. Bowser
P’ship. v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Elshazli v. District of Columbia
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Bastani v. American Federation of Government Employees Afl-Cio
P’ship. v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Petworth Holdings, LLC v. Bowser
(2×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
P’ship v. D.C., 198 F.3d 874, 879 (D.C.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bean v. District of Columbia
(2×)
also: Cited "see"
P'ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Town of Ponce Inlet v. Pacetta, LLC
P’ship v. Dist. of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 879 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Massey v. Tillerson
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Brodie v. Jackson
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (court will not credit “con-clusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record” at summary judgment).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Sensational Smiles, LLC v. Mullen
P’ship v. D.C., 198 F.3d 874, 885 (D.C.Cir.1999) ("While the resulting proposals are naturally advanced in the name of the public good, many are surely driven by interest-group purposes, commonly known as ‘rent-seeking.’ ”). .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Piszel v. United States
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878-79 (D.C.Cir.1999) (Penn Central submits "three primary factors [to be] weighted] in the balance”). 9 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Buie v. Berrien
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory statements lacking any factual basis in the record.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moran v. United States Capitol Police
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory statements lacking any factual basis in the record.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Council of Life Insurers v. District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority
P’ship v. D.C., 198 F.3d 874, 884 (D.C.Cir.1999) (rejecting takings claim and noting that mere loss of value “is irrelevant to whether the property as a whole can be operated at a sufficient profit even with the regulation”), or commercially impracticable, see Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass’n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S. 470, 495-96 , 107 S.Ct. 1232 , 94 L.Ed.2d 472 (1987) (looking to whether the regulation makes property owner’s coal operation “commercially impracticable”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Cole v. Boeing Inc.
P’ship v. D.C., 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (in deciding a motion for summary judgment, “the court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for cdnclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record'”); Greene, 164 F.3d at 675 (nonmovant must present specific facts that would enable a reasonable jury to' find in its favor).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Perry Capital LLC v. Lew
Intown Props., 198 F.3d at 878-79 (Penn Central submits “three primary factors [to be] weighted] in the balance”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ocean Palm Golf Club Partnership v. City of Flagler Beach
P’ship v. Dist. of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 879 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“Under both Lucas and Penn Central, then, we must first define what constitutes the relevant parcel before we can evaluate the regulation’s effect on that parcel.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Giles v. Transit Employees Federal Credit Union
P’ship v. Dist. of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.”); Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671 , 675 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“Although, as a rule, statements made by the party opposing a motion for summary judgment must be accepted as true for the purpose of ruling on that motion, some statements are so concluso'ry as to come within an exception to that rule.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Federation of State , County and Municipal Employees Local 2401 v. District of Columbia
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusionary statements lacking any factual basis in the record.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Akosile v. Armed Forces Retirement Home
P’ship v. Dist. of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“In deciding whether there is a genuine issue of material fact, the court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.”). *91 Placement on administrative leave for a short period of time without loss in pay or benefits in order to investigate an allegation of wrongdoing generally does not constitute an adverse employment action.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Ihebereme v. Capital One, N.A.
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for eonclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Dunes West Golf Club, LLC v. Town of Mount Pleasant
(2×)
Intown Props, v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 879 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“Under both Lucas and Penn Central, then, we must first define what constitutes the relevant parcel before we can evaluate the regulation’s effect on that parcel.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Bonnette v. Shinseki
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.”).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Payne v. Kempthorne
P’ship v. Dist. of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[T]he [C]ourt must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory allegations lacking any factual basis in the record.”) (emphasis added).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Moran v. United States Capitol Police Board
P’ship v. District of Columbia, 198 F.3d 874, 878 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“[T]he court must assume the truth of all statements proffered by the non-movant except for conclusory statements lacking any factual basis in the record.”).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dist Intown Prop Ltd
v.
DC
v.
DC
98-7209.
Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
Dec 28, 1999.
198 F.3d 874
Published
United States Court of Appeals
for the district of columbia circuit
No. 98-7209 September Term, 1999
District Intown Properties Limited Partnership, et al.,
Appellants
v.
District of Columbia, et al.,
Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 96cv00569)
Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Williams and Rogers, Circuit Judges.
O R D E R
It is ORDERED by the Court, on its own motion, that the opinion of Circuit Judge Williams, concurring in the judgment, filed herein this date is amended, as follows:
Page 3, 2nd line from the bottom, insert " Lucas," at the beginning of the line.
Page 7, line 26, delete the closing parenthesis and the period.
Page 10, line 10, "law," should be amended to read "Law,".
for the district of columbia circuit
No. 98-7209 September Term, 1999
District Intown Properties Limited Partnership, et al.,
Appellants
v.
District of Columbia, et al.,
Appellees
Appeal from the United States District Court
for the District of Columbia
(No. 96cv00569)
Before: Edwards, Chief Judge, Williams and Rogers, Circuit Judges.
O R D E R
It is ORDERED by the Court, on its own motion, that the opinion of Circuit Judge Williams, concurring in the judgment, filed herein this date is amended, as follows:
Page 3, 2nd line from the bottom, insert " Lucas," at the beginning of the line.
Page 7, line 26, delete the closing parenthesis and the period.
Page 10, line 10, "law," should be amended to read "Law,".
Per Curiam FOR THE COURT: Mark J. Langer, Clerk
Filed on December 17, 1999