Case law

United States v. Sutton

803 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2011

Although it is not clearly articulated, Mr. … Sutton cannot establish that he suffered any prejudice as a result of his counsel’s purported errors. First, Mr.

Manning v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2020

In Martinez, this Court explained the two-step test established by the Supreme Court in United States v. … Ex. 2, ECF No. 22-2, to establish such non-discretionary duties. See, e.g., Pls.’ Opp’n at 3–4, 7, 13; Second Am. Compl. ¶¶ 6, 60– 76.

Johnson v. Government of the District of Columbia

850 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2012

In order to qualify as a prevailing party, there must be an “alteration in the legal relationship of the parties” and this alteration must be the result of formal judicial action. Lopez v. District of Columbia, 383 F. … In none of these cases, however, did the courts consider the sovereign immunity question. See also Kaseman v. District of Columbia, 329 F.

Broadgate Inc. v. United States Citizenship & Immigration Services

730 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2010

Plaintiffs TechServe and ASA are not-for-profit membership corporations that qualify as small entities under the Regulatory Flexibility Act, 5 U.S.C. § 601 (6), which supply temporary employees to other businesses. … On its face, then, the Memorandum clearly does not purport to establish a new substantive rule with binding effect.

State of Delaware Department of Health and Social Services, Division of Medicaid & Medical Assistance v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

272 F. Supp. 3d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2017

Under the Medicare statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1395 et seq., “providers are reimbursed for the cost of the services they provide to qualified Medicare beneficiaries” based on agreements with HHS. … Plaintiff has espoused no theory as to how Defendants have waived their sovereign immunity for money damages, rather than equitable relief. United States v.

National Clearinghouse for Legal Services, Inc. v. Legal Services Corp.

674 F. Supp. 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 1987

He did not reach the Part 1628 “fund balance” issue presented by Clearinghouse. 6 LSC’s reviewing official adopted the hearing examiner’s decision on January 23, 1987, qualifying it as a final order under 45 C.F.R. § 1625.11 … The Court concludes that he was correct in finding that the action at the March 14, 1986, Board meeting was the establishment of a funding policy under § 1625.3(a).

Wolfe v. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2019

Cir. 2006) (“Congress need not use magic words to waive sovereign immunity, but the language it chooses must be unequivocal and unambiguous.”). … “The issue of probable cause in a false arrest case is a mixed question of law and fact that the trial court should ordinarily leave to the jury,” and “[o]nly where the facts are undisputed or clearly established does probable

Teamsters Local 639-Employers Trust v. Jones & Artis Construction Co.

640 F. Supp. 223 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1986

Plaintiff Trustees of the two Trusts are approved and qualified pursuant to the Teamsters Local 639-Employer Pension Trust Agreement and the Employer Health Trust Agreement. … The circumstances in this proceeding clearly support the relief requested by the plaintiffs. An appropriate Order will be entered. .

Bancroft Global Development v. Koskinen

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2018

Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212 (1983), and a “plaintiff must overcome the defense of sovereign immunity in order to establish the jurisdiction necessary to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss.” Jackson v. … at 1632, by demonstrating that Congress “clearly stated” that it intended the limitations period to be jurisdictional, id.

Clear Blue Specialty Insurance Company v. Rowe

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2024

again be granted leave to amend, either because PChange’s SPOs do count for the general-liability provision or, at least, because he is “entitled to discovery” to prove that PChange employs at least five non-SPOs who qualify … Code § 35‑2106(c)’s requirement that “any liability of an insured . . . shall be paid by the insurer up to the amount established by the policy”).

Appleton v. United States

69 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 1999

See Krc, 989 F.2d 1211 (following Art Metal and holding that a claim for damages against the United States for interference with prospective employment opportunities “would clearly be barred by sovereign immunity” under the … Appleton under D.C. sovereign immunity laws is inapposite. In short, the government’s resort to D.C. sovereign immunity case law does not alter the court’s conclusion that Mr.

Khattak v. Turner

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2023

Takar refused to select either candidate and requested to see the third- and fourth-most qualified applicants. ECF No. 33-9 at 31. The panel responded that Lami and Mohammad were the only two qualified candidates. … selected a less-qualified candidate . . . .”).

Huthnance v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2011

Code § 22-1321 shouldn’t have been given because it wasn’t “clearly established law” is totally without merit. … The “clearly established law” question has to do with the qualified immunity analysis, not whether Huthnance’s rights were violated.

Hale County v. United States

496 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 1980

We follow this order, because, as our analysis shows, the government has clearly established by convincing evidence the discriminatory effect of the change to at-large commissioner elections. … shall be elected by the qualified electors of the county.

Skurow v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

892 F. Supp. 2d 319 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2012

Plaintiff has not established that he would qualify as a person with “need to know.” … A limited number of redactions made by defendants, indicated as R. 6, R. 7, and R. 10, do not clearly indicate that they are redacting personal information about federal employees.

Hylton v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2025

But at least three other circuits have applied that rule to investigatory stops, either on the merits of the First Amendment claim or as a matter of qualified immunity. … Luna, 577 U.S. 7, 11 (2015) (“A clearly established right is one that is sufficiently clear that every reasonable official would have understood that what he is doing violates that right.”).

Frank v. U. S. Department of Justice

480 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 1, 1979

In view of the fact that the Cunningham affidavit establishes that the records were generated as a result of an official investigation of the special agents’ complaints and grievances conducted to determine if any administrative … action should be taken, they clearly qualify as investigative records compiled for law enforcement purposes and are exempt from disclosure under the Privacy Act.

United States v. Vuitch

305 F. Supp. 1032 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 1969

This two-partite exception clearly points v. a basic congressional concern with what may broadly be said to be medical factors. … Under these circumstances, it was and still is well -within the police power of the Congress to outlaw abortions that are not performed under a “competent”, that is, a qualified, licensed, practitioner of medicine.

Hamilton v. Paulson

542 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 3, 2008

He also asserts that the plaintiffs retaliation claim is untimely, id. at 12-15, that the plaintiff cannot establish a prima facie case of retaliation, id. at 15-17, and that even if the plaintiff “c[ould] establish a prima … On several occasions, panel members tried to rephrase the questions to get a response that more clearly addressed the issue.

Truong v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2022

BACKGROUND The EB-5 Immigrant Investor Program offers permanent residency visas to individuals who invest qualifying sums in qualifying businesses in the United States. … USCIS’s treatment of her petition “represent[ed] an abrupt departure from well-established practice.”