In Da Silva v. Sanders, plaintiffs who had guaranteed a loan to their corporation sued the SBA after the agency refused to release its lien on their home following nonpayment on a cashier's check issued by NBW; the SBA cross-claimed against NBW for wrongful dishonor. The court addressed cross-motions for summary judgment on whether, under the District of Columbia's Uniform Commercial Code, NBW could refuse to honor its cashier's check based on fraud or lack of consideration in the underlying transaction when the payee (SBA) was an innocent third party. The court found no genuine issues of material fact and examined two lines of authority on cashier's checks—one treating them as ordinary negotiable instruments subject to personal defenses and the other viewing them as cash equivalents backed by the bank's own credit—while also considering equitable principles under UCC § 1-103. It noted that the case did not involve direct fraud by the payee on the issuing bank and highlighted policy considerations favoring the reliability of cashier's checks for innocent holders.
The case involved a former Army soldier who was discharged under less than honorable conditions in 1973 following AWOL charges and administrative proceedings, and who later sought judicial review after multiple unsuccessful applications to the Army Discharge Review Board and Army Board for Correction of Military Records for an upgrade. The plaintiff filed suit in 1983 alleging constitutional and regulatory violations in the original discharge process as well as improper denial of his upgrade requests under the Administrative Procedure Act. The court granted the Secretary of the Army's motion to dismiss, treated as one for summary judgment, holding that all claims were barred by the six-year statute of limitations under 28 U.S.C. § 2401(a). The core reasoning was that the cause of action for the 1973 discharge accrued at that time, more than six years had elapsed before filing despite intervening administrative reviews, and the plaintiff had not yet exhausted remedies before the ABCMR.
The case involved a negligence lawsuit filed by plaintiff Nellie Sklagen against Greater Southeast Community Hospital after she slipped and fell in her hospital room in 1982, alleging improper maintenance of a wet bathroom floor that caused her back injury. The defendant moved to compel the plaintiff to sign a medical authorization form waiving the physician-patient privilege and allowing access to her pre-incident treatment records from various physicians and hospitals. The court granted the motion, holding that the plaintiff had waived the privilege by placing her physical condition at issue in the lawsuit and by selectively producing only post-incident records. The court reasoned that it would be unfair to permit the plaintiff to shield potentially damaging pre-incident materials while disclosing favorable ones, and that the authorization merely facilitated informal ex parte interviews with witnesses outside the formal discovery rules.
In this case, plaintiff Heffez sued WMATA, two Metro Transit Police officers, and a subway station attendant for compensatory and punitive damages plus injunctive relief, alleging verbal and physical assaults, unlawful arrest, and Fifth Amendment violations during incidents in August and September 1982, with claims brought under common law and 42 U.S.C. § 1983. WMATA moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b), arguing that Section 80 of the WMATA Compact barred common-law tort claims for governmental functions like police operations and that the Eleventh Amendment barred constitutional claims. The court granted the motion in part, dismissing common-law tort claims against WMATA based on the officers' actions because operating the transit police is a governmental function under the Compact, but allowing claims based on the station attendant's proprietary functions; it also dismissed all § 1983 claims against WMATA on the ground that WMATA is not a suable "person" under the statute as an arm of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia entitled to Eleventh Amendment immunity. The court further dismissed certain common-law claims against the station attendant individually and specified which counts remained viable against which defendants.
The case concerned Impro Products' application for attorneys' fees and expenses under the Equal Access to Justice Act after it prevailed in an earlier suit against the Secretary of Agriculture. In the underlying action, the company challenged a 1960s government test of its animal biologic product and a journal article describing the test results as false and misleading, ultimately obtaining an injunction barring further distribution of the article without corrections. The court granted the fee request, holding that the government's litigation position was not substantially justified because the article contained inaccuracies and the agency delayed raising defenses until late in the proceedings. The award was reduced to exclude time spent on unnecessary or redundant work and to conform hourly rates to the Act's guidelines.
The case involved Nicaraguan citizens, U.S. members of Congress, and Florida residents suing President Reagan and other federal officials over alleged U.S.-sponsored paramilitary raids and training activities in Nicaragua and Florida. The plaintiffs claimed these actions violated international law, the U.S. Constitution's war powers clause, statutes like the War Powers Resolution and Boland Amendment, and state nuisance law, seeking damages and injunctive relief. The court granted the defendants' motion to dismiss the entire action, holding that the claims presented a non-justiciable political question. The core reasoning was that the dispute raised significant factual and policy issues lacking judicially discoverable or manageable standards, and resolving it would improperly interfere with the Executive and Legislative branches' authority over foreign policy and national security under separation of powers principles.