Case law

Douglas Timber Operators, Inc. v. Salazar

774 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2011

Glickman, 92 F.3d 1228, 1233 (D.C.Cir.1996) (“Government acts constricting a firm’s supply of its main raw material clearly inflict the constitutionally necessary injury.”). The D.C. … The court concluded that “the potential destruction of fire is so severe that relatively modest increments in risk should qualify for standing.” Id. at 1235 . Thus, the D.C.

Reagan Bush Committee v. Federal Election Commission

525 F. Supp. 1330 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 17, 1981

PECFA establishes a fund for Presidential candidates’ campaigns from tax monies. … Moreover, as another court noted, “The legislative history of the provision [section 437g(a)(12)(A)] clearly establishes that it was not meant to conceal the results or the contents of an investigation, but rather that it

Chisholm v. District of Columbia

666 F. Supp. 2d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009

The plaintiff counters that she “can establish a prima facie case of age discrimination[,]” that she is “a qualified individual with a disability ... or is perceived as disabled by [the defendant,]” and that there are genuine … In order to establish a prima facie case in the context of an ADEA employment termination claim, the plaintiff must show that she (1) belongs to the statutorily protected age group, (2) she was qualified for the position,

Bernhardt v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2023

So, “a plaintiff that offers proof sufficient to establish a waiver of 26 foreign sovereign immunity under § 1605A(a) has also established entitlement to relief as a … That is clearly so in the case of the Camp Chapman attack, which caused such a dramatic loss to the U.S. intelligence community.

Titan Consortium 1, LLC v. Argentine Republic

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 10, 2024

Subject Matter Jurisdiction This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Federal Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) arbitration exception, 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(6), which requires (1) an arbitration agreement … Authenticity of the Award The record establishes (and Argentina does not contest) that the awards are authentic.

Shea v. Powell

961 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 10, 2013

The Court concluded, while also rejecting State’s argument for legislative immunity, that “[t]he FRAA clearly does not mandate an exception to Title VII and does not mandate creation of the MLAAP specifically.” 2011) … State’s admission that Shea would have been qualified but for his race establishes the necessary causal connection between the MLAAP and discrimination against the majority.

Northern Air Cargo v. United States Postal Service

741 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2010

(“Appellees’ claims here, that the Postal Service ‘exceeded its statutory authority’ in purporting to apply the statute, clearly admit of judicial review.”). B. … To the contrary, plaintiffs argue that § 5402(g)(5)(C) clearly specifies, without qualification, that “ ‘a new 121 mainline passenger carrier, otherwise qualified under this subsection, may immediately receive equitable tender

Carroll v. Tennessee Valley Authority

697 F. Supp. 508 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 1988

Here, Counts III and IV seek to impose liability on TVA for its failure to maintain a smoke-free work environment; those claims are clearly “work-related injuries” to which FECA’s exclusivity provision applies. Id. … (2) even if discretion is required, immunity attaches so long as the challenged action is not mandated by law.

Washington Legal Foundation v. United States Department of Justice

691 F. Supp. 483 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 4, 1988

,” “well qualified,” “qualified,” or “not qualified.” 17 This one- or two-sentence rating 18 is forwarded to DOJ, accompanied by an indication of whether it is supported by a majority or substantial majority of the Committee … See Food & Chemical News, 378 F.Supp. at 1051 (“Clearly where, as here, a federal agency utilizes an advisory committee for the purpose of obtaining advice, the agency must charter and establish the committee in compliance

Group v. Finletter

108 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 1952

Rossell case, supra, that the question of whether plaintiffs’ rights were violated was clearly *329 put in issue, for the Court said, 101 F. … There have been no answering affidavits and the undisputed facts establish a violation of plaintiff’s rights so that Leeds v. Rossell, supra, is not in point but the case of Reeber v.

Murphy v. the Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2010

The FSIA prescribes which individuals qualify as those to whom entities subject to liability may be liable. … This is a case where higher ratios are clearly warranted.

Dunning v. Quander

468 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2006

For the following reasons, plaintiff fails to establish such an inference. B. … Our Circuit has clearly held that such an analysis is not within the province of this Court. 9 See Fischbach v.

Ervin v. Howard University

445 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2006

Does the term refer back to a peer review body, in its various incarnations, or to the health care facility that establishes the peer review body? … Health Care Peer Review Act is to “expand, strengthen,] and clarify the immunity and confidentiality provisions of the former 1978 Medical Records Act.” Defs.’

United States v. Mosquera-Murillo

172 F. Supp. 3d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2016

were not subject to or 10 governed by the APA, the Court held that these proceedings did not fall within the category of proceedings for which the EAJA waived sovereign immunity … Thus, because the penalties for violating the substantive and conspiracy provisions of the MDLEA are found in § 960(b), the defendants assert that the MDLEA clearly qualifies as an “offense under” § 960 to which the safety-valve

Cuddy v. Carmen

580 F. Supp. 788 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 1984

In order to establish a prima facie case, or, in other words, to create a reasonable inference of discrimination, the plaintiff must show that he: (1) belongs to the protected class (age 40-70); (2) was qualified for the … If this was the case, then clearly age was not a determining factor in Treichel’s opinion unless the plaintiff was omitted from the list because of his age.

Nurriddin v. O'Keefe

40 F. Supp. 3d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 2014

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation for refusal to promote, "a plaintiff must show that (1) he engaged in protected activity, (2) he was qualified for the promotion, (3) the employer took an adverse personnel … , more is required to establish pretext.

United States v. Haywood

289 F. Supp. 479 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 1968

Have you any views opposed to the form of government established by the U. S. Constitution?” Both questions elicit information which could clearly be pertinent to eligibility for jury service. … If in a subsequent interview with an individual answering affirmatively it should develop, for example, that the prospective juror did not believe in trial by jury, his ineligibility would clearly be established.

Etokie v. Duncan

202 F. Supp. 3d 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2016

She then established a panel that would interview those applicants. Id. at 170:22-171:3. … The Federal Tort Claims Act (“FTCA”) “waives the United States’s sovereign immunity from tort claims and, subject to exceptions, renders the United States liable in tort as if it were a private person.” Gross v.

Hastings v. Judicial Conference of United States

593 F. Supp. 1371 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 1984

Congress recognized that a clearly established pattern of similar or disparate unethical judicial conduct, if unchecked, could so prejudice the administration of the courts and bring the judiciary into such disrepute that … As the Court observed in Brewster , regarding Speech or Debate Clause immunities of Congressmen designed to provide protections for the independence of that branch analogous to those considered today: "The immunities of the

Atraqchi v. Williams

220 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2004

this Court is “for any improper purpose, such as to harass,” or whether plaintiffs’ claims “are warranted by existing law or by a non-frivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment … The police officers’ qualified immunity in this situation so obviously applies (if a 14th Amendment violation has even been properly alleged) as to require no further briefing or discussion.