Case law

Hollister v. Soetoro

258 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2009

The dispute that he attempted to litigate here was about whether or not Barack Obama is a “natural born Citizen,” and thereby qualified under Article II, section 1 of the Constitution to be President. … Moreover, one might add, no court has held that a claim made for the first time cannot on that account be found frivolous, or that “creativity” confers immunity from Rule 11 sanctions.

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.

Student Loan Marketing Ass'n v. Riley

907 F. Supp. 464 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 1995

The subsidiary will in turn establish a trust, organized for the dual purposes of financing the purchase of and holding the loans. … As we in this nation are now experiencing, few if any congressionally-enacted programs are immune from curtailment or indeed outright abolishment.

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.

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.

Charlton v. Donley

611 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2009

Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing subject matter jurisdiction. See Brady Campaign to Prevent Gun Violence v. Ashcroft, 339 F.Supp.2d 68, 72 (D.D.C.2004). … Rumsfeld, 320 F.3d 265, 271 (D.C.Cir.2003) (such waivers are adequate to maintain district court jurisdiction when “clearly and adequately expressed”).

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

United States v. Butler

253 F. Supp. 3d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 25, 2017

The Supreme Court noted that its holding did not render the U.S.S.G. immune from constitutional scrutiny, including scrutiny under the due process clause. Id. at 895-96. … The Court finds this is sufficient to establish prejudice for the purposes of the procedural default rule. However, whether Mr. Butler was actually prejudiced requires a review of the merits of his claims. B.

Boggs v. United States

987 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 1997

Factually, Bazuaye and the instant case are similar — both involved seizures by officers who were clearly acting in a capacity unrelated to the enforcement of tax or customs laws. … And, as the crash occurred in Antarctica, venue could not be established in the place where the acts complained of occurred.

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.

Francis v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 18, 2010

But in all other respects Jenkins was similarly qualified. … , but whether he was significantly better qualified than Williams.

Lampkin v. District of Columbia

879 F. Supp. 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 1995

Defendants observe that the information on a family’s application must be verified before the family can qualify for shelter services. … Clearly such a policy provides a barrier to education. 10 .

Toms v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

650 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2009

For the foregoing reasons, the plaintiff has failed to establish an exception to the application of res judicata. … Regarding the defendant’s arguments for dismissal of the plaintiff's Bivens claims, the plaintiff notes in his Opposition only that "the [defendants ... are not entitled to qualified immunity from the Bivens claim of the

Scott v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 2009

As this Court has explained: It is a bedrock principle of American law that the United States, as sovereign, is immune from suit unless Congress has expressly waived that immunity. … Because “[s]overeign immunity is jurisdictional in nature,” F.D.I.C. v.

Walters v. People's Republic of China

72 F. Supp. 3d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2014

The order clearly and unambiguously directed Defendant to “produce the requested documents to counsel for Plaintiffs by no later than April 15, 2014” and to “appear before the undersigned in Courtroom 4 of the United States … Accordingly, the undersigned finds that Plaintiffs have established a basis for the court, in an exercise of its inherent power, to find Defendant in civil contempt of the court.

Hairsine v. James

517 F. Supp. 2d 301 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2007

The evidence in the record establishes that Ms. Pitt’s claim is accurate. According to the testimony of Mr. … The record simply does not reflect a discriminatory decision to promote two minority applicants over a white applicant with clearly superior qualifications. The government’s motion for summary judgment will be granted.

Sai v. Department of Homeland Security

149 F. Supp. 3d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2015

Under Section 504 of the Act, [n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States . . . shall, solely by reason of her or his disability, be excluded from the participation in, be … same statutory purpose is 25 identified in the authoritative Attorney General’s Manual on the Administrative Procedure Act 95 (1947), which explained: “The net effect, clearly

Fraternal Order of Police, D.C. v. Gates

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2009

However, this conclusory statement sheds no light on any of the criteria established by the Supreme Court. … Plaintiffs’ allegation that the action was "clearly not the product of reasoned thought," Pl.

White v. Vilsack

80 F. Supp. 3d 123 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2015

White lacks standing; that his claims are otherwise jurisdictionally barred by the United States’ sovereign immunity; and that his claims are untimely as well as precluded by the doctrine of res judicata. … White purports to seek redress for USDA’s alleged discrimination during the decades from 1910 to 1970, see Compl. at 2, such claims would be clearly foreclosed by the Equal Credit Opportunity Act’s five-year statute of limitations

United States v. Taylor

272 F. Supp. 3d 127 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2017

The Supreme Court noted that its holding did not render the U.S.S.G. immune from constitutional scrutiny, including scrutiny under the due process clause. Id. at 895-96. … Maryland AWIR conviction In order to establish the Maryland AWIR offense pursuant to Md.