Case law

Butera v. District of Columbia

83 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 1999

Again, the Court relies upon the verdict sheet which clearly delineates the injuries and the corresponding compensation. … As a result, the Court determines that Plaintiff has established her entitlement to the fee award by qualifying as a prevailing party under the Fees Act and is entitled to reasonable attorney’s fees.

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

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.

Johnson v. Curtis Dworken Chevrolet

242 B.R. 773 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 1999

To establish a prima facie case, Mr. … To establish a prima facie case of race discrimination under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, the plaintiff must show that (1) he belongs to a protected class; (2) he was qualified for the job from which he was

Lee v. McDonough

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 19, 2024

In response, the plaintiff asserts that “he clearly alleged a [Title VII] hostile work environment and discriminatory discipline [claim] to which the [C]ourt may look . . . … See, e.g., Baloch, 550 F.3d at 1199 (“[S]poradic verbal altercations or disagreements do not qualify as adverse actions for purposes of retaliation claims.”); Howard v. Kerry, 85 F.

Moses v. Kennedy

219 F. Supp. 762 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 1963

Defendants have made no contention that this allegation is defective, and the Court will therefore assume, for the purposes of this motion, that plaintiffs could establish this proposition. … Such actions on the part of defendants, however, are clearly discretionary, and decisions respecting such actions are committed to the Executive branch of the Government, not to the-courts.

Office of Foreign Assets Control v. Voices in the Wilderness

329 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2004

To obtain monetary relief, Voices must establish subject matter jurisdiction over the Government through a waiver of sovereign immunity. See Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp. v. … Accordingly, the FTCA does not waive the government’s sovereign immunity as to the claim for money damages.

Harrison v. Butz

375 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 1973

She was informed that her performance rating did not qualify her to be placed on the register for that position. … The Equal Employment Opportunity Act of 1972, is remedial and, in accordance with established legal principles, applies to cases pending on its effective date.

In re Estate of Dee Hanson

210 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 1962

She had no interest in the same; no right or standing to qualify as a party to the proceedings and oppose a divorce. … They had no interest in them; no right or standing to qualify as parties to the proceedings and oppose the divorce.

American Council of Life Insurers v. District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority

73 F. Supp. 3d 65 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 13, 2014

Only those health insurance plans that meet certain minimum requirements established by federal law are eligible for sale as Qualified Health Plans (“QHPs”) on either State or Federal Exchanges. … Code § 31- 3171.03(e)(2), by charging “(A) User fees; (B) Licensing fees; and (C) Other assessments on health carriers selling qualified dental plans or qualified health plans in the District, including qualified health

Reynolds v. Sheet Metal Workers Local 102

498 F. Supp. 952 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 1980

Employers are most likely to suffer such penalization when a plaintiff can establish a high disparity in selection rates and is unable to offer additional proof of an untapped pool of interested and potentially qualified … The high proficiency level established by this standard not only precludes qualified employees but also is not refined sufficiently to measure the ability sought by the company. 494 F.2d at 237-38 .

Hassanali v. Attorney General

599 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 1984

The ostensible owners decision to establish a new, similar business enterprise in the same area is not a basis for a finding of continuity for the purposes of this petition. … Clearly, the regulation appears to be more restrictive than the statute. As the Court has noted, the purpose of the labor certification procedure is to protect American workers.

Searcy v. Vilsack

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2026

While pleadings by pro se litigants are generally held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, a pro se plaintiff still bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Newby v. … And even had Searcy alleged that his treatment was due to a protected characteristic, his treatment would nevertheless fail to qualify as sufficiently “severe” to make out a hostile work environment claim.

Zhang v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2018

Therefore, to qualify, a petition must establish that the alien investor “secured the loan using assets for which they own and are personally and primarily liable.” Id. … Evaluating the fourth factor, however, clearly suggests that USCIS’ interpretation is a legislative rule.

Perry-Anderson v. Howard University Hospital

192 F. Supp. 3d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2016

9 or mental limitations of an otherwise qualified individual with a disability who is an . . . … In the plaintiff’s FMLA Application, which she submitted to the HUH HR department, her neurologist clearly stated that the plaintiff’s medical restriction is that she “needs [a] job with less stress,” and that her limitation

Mazloum v. District of Columbia

442 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2006

ineffective by the alleged cover-up by Acosta and Smith are the § 1983 claims against the off-duty officers for unlawful arrest and use of excessive force, and the common law claims of assault and battery — the claims most clearly … “a means for establishing vicarious liability for the underlying tort.”

United States v. Cross

170 F. Supp. 303 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 1959

Just as clearly, when the Select Committee propounded such questions for such purpose, it was a “competent tribunal” within the purview of the federal perjury statute. … I will say the same as I voluntarily told the grand jury in San Francisco, waiving immunity I was asleep in my room. I was not there. * * * * * * * * # “The Chairman. Let me ask you a question.

Colbert v. District of Columbia

5 F. Supp. 3d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 2013

Circuit held that they were protected by qualified immunity because there was no clearly established constitutional duty to obtain earlier medical assistance for Mr. Harris. … Colbert can establish that the District was so deliberately indifferent to KC’s constitutional rights that it “shocks the conscience.”

Young v. Ridley

309 F. Supp. 1308 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1970

judges * * 1 However, Section 2282 does not apply if the question of constitutionality raised is not “substantial,” A claim may lack substantiality “either because it is obviously without merit or because its unsoundness so clearly … The statute found defective in Sniadach permitted the creditor to freeze his debtor’s wages, except for a small statutory immunity, merely by serving a summons on the debtor’s employer.