Case law

Balkan Energy Limited v. Republic of Ghana

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2018

First, it asserts that this court lacks subject-matter jurisdiction because Ghana is entitled to immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). … Instead, as the court clearly explained, it honored the parties’ choice-of-law clause contained in the assignment agreement. 5 F. Supp. 3d at 36.

Lane v. Vasquez

961 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2013

and selectee is “inherently indicative of discrimination.”69/ This disparity of qualification is evidence when the plaintiff is “markedly more qualified,” “substantially more qualified,” or “significantly better qualified … interviewed for PC3-020.101/ Second, White’s poor employer reference does not sufficiently create the kind of disparity that shows inherent discrimination.102/ And, more importantly, Lane never offers evidence that he was clearly

Horizon Lines, LLC. v. United States

414 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 10, 2006

Vessels meeting the requirements of § 883 are referred to as “Jones Act qualified.” … CBP seized on this supposition in rejecting plaintiffs petition for reconsideration to and jumped to the conclusion that, “as the STB opinion clearly states, ...

Sanford v. Howard University

415 F. Supp. 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 1976

A brilliant, exceptionally qualified black student was given course credit without an examination. … Also clearly in point is the holding of another circuit in an opin *30 ion by Judge Stevens, now Mr.

Smith v. Chamber of Commerce of United States

645 F. Supp. 604 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 1986

Defendant has moved for summary judgment on the grounds that first, plaintiff fails to establish a prima facie case of age discrimination, and second, even if plaintiff has established a prima facie case, defendant has articulated … Regardless of whether plaintiff could have presented a prima facie case, summary judgment clearly is warranted on his ADEA claim as defendant has fulfilled its burden of producing evidence showing that plaintiff was terminated

Broidy Capital Management LLC v. Muzin

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2022

And they lack “conduct-based immunity” because the State Department never granted them a suggestion of immunity, because the State Department lacks an “established policy” of recognizing immunity in similar circumstances … It is also consistent with the law of sovereign immunity, as discussed above, under which an entity’s immunity from discovery is generally coextensive with its immunity from suit.

Does 1-72 v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 2019

In order to qualify for an EB-5 visa, immigrant investors must establish that it is more likely than not that their investment will create full time positions for at least ten qualifying employees. 8 U.S.C. § 1153(b)(5) … qualifying employees.

Northern Air Cargo v. United States Postal Service

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

Duffy v. Jones

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2020

Cir. 1992), establish that the Court has jurisdiction. The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. See Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). … And, second, has Congress waived the United States’s immunity to suit?” Id.

Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

8 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2014

Consequently, even if the Court were to consider Eviatar's Declaration, it does not establish that the GIS documents are of any outstanding importance to Plaintiffs' case. … The Court Did Not "Clearly Err" by Considering the Palestinian Authority's Interests as a Foreign Government Next, Plaintiffs argue that the Court clearly erred in concluding

Burton v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2009

Experts may be qualified on the basis of their “knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education,” FED. R. EVID. 702, and Dr. Genecin is well qualified as an expert in VTE on all five bases. … ’ waiver of sovereign immunity, McNamara v.

Lazur v. United Mine Workers of America

471 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1979

Plaintiff worked in all some 27 months as a teller, a wholly insufficient period to qualify. His job as a teller was clearly part-time or temporary employment within the meaning of the Plan. … Plaintiff completely failed to establish any full-time work for his District. A review of all facts before the Committee is not necessary.

Walker v. Jones

675 F. Supp. 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1987

As such, the plaintiff has clearly stated a justi-ciable constitutional cause of action. Davis, supra, 442 U.S. 228, 235 , 99 S.Ct. 2264, 2271 . Walker, supra, 733 F.2d 923 at 933 . … Accordingly, this Court concludes that pursuant to the principles established by the Supreme Court in Davis, Bush, and Carlson, supra, the plaintiff has stated a “justi-ciable constitutional claim upon which relief can be

McCall v. Shields Associates, Inc.

617 F. Supp. 244 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 15, 1985

Even if Shields had established a prima facie violation, the testimony of Ugo Carusi, Chairman of the District of Columbia Jury Commission, clearly demonstrated that the Modified Plan was developed, adopted, and implemented … The completed questionnaires are then reviewed by the Commission in establishing the “qualified jury wheel.” 3 .

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State

650 F. Supp. 2d 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2009

The government claims these documents are exempt under from disclosure under Exemption (b)(6), which permits withholding of "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly … IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1193 (D.C.Cir.2009) (explaining the low threshold of establishing that information would “risk circumvention of the law” (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(7)(E))).

Poss v. Kern

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2024

Nor does § 8.01-328.1(A)(1)—which grants jurisdiction over defendants “transacting any business” in Virginia—apply here because Kern’s contacts to Virginia are less significant than those found to qualify as transacting … That judicial review provision is precisely the type of “special and adequate review procedure” Congress “immunized from duplicative APA review.” CREW, 846 F.3d at 1245–46 (cleaned up); Haleem v.

HUTHNANCE v. District of Columbia

793 F. Supp. 2d 183 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2011

First, defense counsel insisted that qualified immunity shielded Officers Antonio and Acebal from liability for Huthnance’s allegations. Mar. 23, 2011 A.M. Trial Tr. 129. … The “clearly established law” question has to do with the qualified immunity analysis, not whether Huthnance’s rights were violated.

Chandler v. Kiely

539 F. Supp. 2d 220 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2008

See D.C.Code § 24-133(a), (c) (establishing CSOSA “within the executive branch of the Federal Government” to “provide supervision, through qualified supervision officers, for offenders on probation, parole, and supervised … Such claims are barred by the United States’ sovereign immunity unless plaintiffs first exhaust their administrative remedies as required by the Federal Tort Claims Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2671 et seq. See McNeil v.

Barth v. Mabry Carlton Ranch Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2026

Thus, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992). … But this alleged connection between the Florida-based activity and this District is “neither substantial enough nor [does it] qualify as transacting business.” Kazenercom TOO v. Turan Petroleum, Inc., 590 F.

Dorsey v. Jacobson Holman, PLLC

707 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 2010

QUESTION: What do I do if I think I qualify for the COBRA premium reduction but my plan tells me I do not? A. … Exhaustion is excused if a litigant's interest in an immediate judicial forum clearly outweighs the institutional interests underlying the exhaustion requirement. McCarthy v.