Case law

Community Oncology Alliance, Inc. v. Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2024

Under the Medicare Act, the Secretary of HHS must use formal rulemaking to establish a “rule, requirement, or other statement of policy . . . that establishes or changes a substantive legal standard governing . . . the … For example, when the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure explain that an individual in a foreign country (without an international agreement with the United States) may be served a copy of the complaint “personally,” it clearly

Scolaro v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections and Ethics

104 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2000

Two GU students, intervenors James Fogarty and Rebecca Sinderbrand, registered to vote in the District and qualified as candidates for two ANC positions. … Court of Appeals and that Court’s unique and clearly defective construction of the D.C. election statute now permits [sic] non[-]residents to register without swearing they are qualified, relieves [sic] the Board of its statutory

Althiabat v. Howard University, et.al

76 F. Supp. 3d 194 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 24, 2014

Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress The requirements for establishing the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are demanding. … An action would lie against an individual who subjects a person to the deprivation of “any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws…” 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Marjorie Webster Junior College, Inc. v. Middle States Ass'n of Colleges & Secondary Schools, Inc.

302 F. Supp. 459 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 1969

It seeks to determine in broad qualitative terms whether an institution has clearly defined and appropriate objectives, whether it has established conditions under which it can reasonably be expected to attain them and whether … It seeks to determine in broad qualitative terms whether an institution has clearly defined appropriate objectives, whether it has established conditions under which it can reasonably be expected to obtain them, and whether

Kyler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

46 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2014

The claimant must support her claim of impairment with “[o]bjective medical evidence” that is “established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” Id. § 423(d)(5)(A). … For the foregoing reasons, the Court agrees that the case should be remanded, albeit for further proceedings since the Court does not find the evidence in the record to be “clearly indicative of disability.”

Dayton v. Dulles

146 F. Supp. 876 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1956

App.D.C. 287, 290, 225 F.2d 938, 941 , the Court said: “World conditions, and those in particular areas, as to which the Executive has special information and on the basis of which he is especially qualified to make decisions … Such a holding would be contrary to a body of decisions which recognize the complicated, delicate and manifold problems relating to our foreign relations and the fact that such relations are largely immune from judicial inquiry

Rothe v. Astrue

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2011

Finally, a letter from Procter notes that plaintiff “has supplied documentation that clearly states a diagnosis of: Depression, Fibromyalgia, Chronic Fatigue Syndrome, and Chemical Sensitivity.” … The claimant must support his claim of impairment with “[o]bjective medical evidence” that is “established by medically acceptable clinical or laboratory diagnostic techniques.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(d)(5)(A).

Communities for a Great Northwest, Ltd. v. Clinton

112 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2000

Finally, plaintiffs contend that the IC-BEMP qualifies as a “rule” promulgated by defendants in violation of the SBREFA, which provides that agencies must submit the rules that they promulgate for congressional review before … Judicial Review: “Final Agency Action” The United States and its agencies are not amenable to suit, absent a statutory waiver of sovereign immunity. See J.B. Floyd v.

Bergman v. Paulson

555 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2008

It is hornbook law that a regulation that is clearly inconsistent with the plain meaning of a statute is invalid. Am. Fed’n of Gov’t Employees v. Gates, 486 F.3d 1316, 1321-22 (D.C.Cir.2007). … Ironically, it was Williams, a former professional colleague of Plaintiff's, who persuaded Plaintiff to join the newly established Office of Public Liaison, which he was heading. 7 .

Chenault v. McHugh

968 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2013

To survive a motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff must establish the court’s jurisdiction over the subject matter by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. … This Circuit has cautioned that “[u]nlike an ordinary statute of limitations, § 2401(a) is a jurisdictional condition attached to the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity, and as such must be strictly construed.”

Coles v. Harvey

471 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2007

There is no question that the United States has not waived its sovereign immunity for Title VII claims brought by persons who are not government employees. See, e.g., Bryant v. … Defendant’s factual assertions do not establish the contrary as a matter of law. There is clearly a genuine dispute about who supervised Ms. Coles, and the fact that Kelly Services paid Ms.

Teneyck v. Omni Shoreham Hotel

224 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2002

The model requires a plaintiff to show: (i) that [s]he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that [s]he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants; (iii) that, despite [her] qualifications … To accomplish this task, “the defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence,' the reasons for the plaintiffs rejection.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 255 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 .

Simens v. Reno

960 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 1997

But this reasoning clearly cannot be imported to the Title VII context for reasons stated by the O’Connor Court itself. … “The question instead is whether the plaintiff has established a logical reason to believe that the decision rests on a legally forbidden ground.

Serbian Eastern Orthodox Diocese for the United States of America & Canada v. Central Intelligence Agency

458 F. Supp. 798 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 20, 1978

established that in camera inspection is not automatic. … Upon careful consideration of each of these itemizations, we conclude that defendants have clearly established that harm would result from the release of these documents and that the public interest in their release fails

Klayman v. National Security Agency

280 F. Supp. 3d 39 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2017

“[I]t is well established that ‘[a]bsent a waiver, sovereign immunity shields the Federal Government and its agencies from suit.’” Debrew v. Atwood, 792 F.3d 118, 124 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting FDIC v. … Plaintiffs also insist that the Government has engaged in a “pattern and practice of deception and disregard for the law,” such that "[p]laintiffs have clearly established at minimum 'reasonable probability’ that future harm

Indian Educators Federation Local 4524 of the American Federation of Teachers v. Kempthorne

541 F. Supp. 2d 257 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

Such qualified Indians shall hereafter have the preference to appointment to vacancies in any such positions. 25 U.S.C. § 472 (2000) (emphasis added). … Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., if Congress has not spoken clearly on the precise question at issue, a reviewing court must determine if the agency’s interpretation of the statute ‘represents a reasonable accommodation

Public Citizen, Inc. v. Lew

127 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2000

In accordance with OMB Circular A-130, agencies should already be establishing inventories of their “major information systems.” … Finding that Congress has not clearly expressed its intent in § 3506(b)(4) as to whether an agency must inventory all of its information systems or only those qualifying as “major,” the Court upholds OMB’s interpretation

Cannady v. State of Maryland

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 2020

Because the Court clearly lacks personal jurisdiction over the defendants, the Court need not address the claims of sovereign immunity or improper service as alternative grounds for dismissal. … Cannady may be able to establish general or specific jurisdiction over Talbot County and Baltimore in Maryland, where those governments are established and where the events he alleges took place.

Government Accountability Project v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2010

The threshold issue under Exemption 5 is whether the withheld documents qualify as "inter-agency or intra-agency" memoranda. … To the contrary, release of the excised addresses would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy.

Sledge v. United States Bureau of Prisons

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2010

However, the FTCA’s waiver of sovereign immunity is subject to several exceptions. … Pennsylvania law clearly does not apply under Missouri’s choice-of-law rules.