DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

v.

BROWN

Citator

Cited By

• Josiah Haynesworth and Fred Hancock v. Miller, 820 F.2d 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1987)
  …we think the implied constitutional right to sue should mirror the express statutory cause of action to the fullest extent possible. See Brown v. United States, 239 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347 n. 2, 742 F. 2d 1498, 1500 n. 2 (en banc 1984), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1073, 105 S.Ct. 2153, 85 L.Ed.2d 509 (1985) (case for assimilation of § 1983 and Bivens caselaw "is especially strong” in constitutional tort actions against District of Columbia); see also Ellis v. Blunt, 643 F. 2d 68, 84 (2d Cir.1981) (noting "the gene…
• Majette v. O'Connor, 811 F.2d 1416 (11th Cir. 1987)
  …e requirement which consisted both of a time limitation and a requirement of exhaustion of administrative remedies could not be applied to a section 1983 action. See also Brown v. United States, 742 F. 2d 1498 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1073, 105 S.Ct. 2153, 85 L.Ed.2d 509 (1985) (holding that noncompliance with a notice of claim provision in the District of Columbia Code does not bar federal causes of action). We likewise conclude that section 768.28(6) constitutes an exhaustion of a…
• Hacienda la Puente Unified Sch. Dist. OF LOS Angeles v. Honig, 976 F.2d 487 (9th Cir. 1992)
  …rate into federal law as much state law as a federal action will tolerate, []or how best to further state policies and goals in the litigation of a federal action.” Brown v. United States, 742 F. 2d 1498, 1504 (D.C.Cir.1984) (en banc), cert. denied, 471 U.S. 1073, 105 S.Ct. 2153, 85 L.Ed.2d 509 (1985). Instead, “[t]he issue is how best to effectuate the federal policies embodied in a federal action [if] the action does not [*496] itself supply the complete legal framework necessary to the effectuation of tho…