Case law

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.

Clarian Health West, LLC v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2016

Courts have warned that “the spectrum between a clearly interpretive rule and a clearly substantive one is a hazy continuum,” Am. Hosp. … First, the qualifying criteria for reconciliation of outlier payments clearly effect a change in agency policy.

Miller v. Holzmann

575 F. Supp. 2d 2 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2008

As explained above, the qualifier "prevailing" appears in numerous other federal fee-shifting provisions, and its meaning is well-established. See, e.g., Farrar, 506 U.S. at 109-11 , 113 S.Ct. 566 . … This would be clearly absurd.

Pfeiffer v. United States Department of Energy

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2023

Because the Court concluded that the plaintiff qualifies as an educational institution FOIA requester, the Court refrained from “address[ing] the question of whether the plaintiff alternatively qualifies as a news media … The Department suggests that the Memorandum Opinion was clearly erroneous, see id.

John Doe 1 v. Rumsfeld

341 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2004

The petitioners argued that the Panel had erred in concluding that the Braehman study qualified as a well-controlled field trial for purposes of 21 C.F.R. § 601.25 (d)(2). See A.R. 1316-17 & n. 6. … The vaccine’s use was intended to be for “protection against cutaneous anthrax in fully immunized subjects.” 50 Fed.Reg. at 51,059.

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.

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.”).

New Civil Liberties Alliance v. Securities and Exchange Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2025

It is well established that Exemption (b)(5) can apply to attorney work product. Jud. Watch, Inc. v. Dep't of Just., 432 F.3d 366, 369 (D.C. … That doesn’t end the matter, for the materials must still qualify under the attorney work- product doctrine.

Harris County, Texas v. Robert F. Kennedy, Jr.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2025

Even though Congress clearly intended the funding to address future pandemics and public-health issues as well, the sole reason offered for the terminations was that the COVID-19 pandemic is over. … Circuit has suggested, though not clearly held, that such claims might be permitted to proceed in district court.

Muldrow v. Re-Direct, Inc.

397 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2005

Contributory Negligence Defendant argues that the “testimony clearly established only one arguable breach, Kenneth’s non-compliance with support services,” that this non-compliance “was undisputedly the result of Kenneth’ … The evidence clearly established numerous failures on the part of Re-Direct which the jury could have concluded substantially contributed to Kenneth’s death.

Maxwell v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2024

The terrorism exception establishes “that a foreign state is not immune in ‘any case’ in which 4 The Court will not consider whether Plaintiffs satisfied the limitation period in § 1605A(b). … July 2, 2020) (“Congress clearly authorized plaintiffs suing under § 1605A(c) to seek punitive damages for pre-2008 conduct.” (citation omitted)).

Linchpins of Liberty v. United States of America

71 F. Supp. 3d 236 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 23, 2014

immunity. … immunity bars the relief sought in counts one through three.

Welzel v. Bernstein

436 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2006

But more importantly, the record clearly supports defendants’ argument that Sherman had come to the conclusion that plaintiff should be terminated prior to his meeting with plaintiff on March 7, and that he had even gotten … As is clear from White (see note 12, supra), this arguably uncivil conduct would not qualify as sexual harassment within the meaning of Title VII. 14 .

Frazza v. United States

529 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2008

The technical nature of this testing demonstrates clearly that the relevant standard of care in this action is “beyond the ken of the average layperson.” Briggs, 481 F.3d at 845 . … Rather, the expert must clearly articulate and refers ence a standard of care by which the defendant’s actions can be measured.

Elhusseini v. Compass Group USA, Inc.

578 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2008

On this record the defendant has clearly presented a legitimate nondiscriminatory reason for the plaintiffs non-selection; thus, the burden returns to the plaintiff to demonstrate that the proffered reason is a pretext for … Thus, the plaintiff has not satisfied his burden of establishing a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge.

Taylor v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

922 F. Supp. 665 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 2, 1996

As stated above, defendant can clearly do so: it found plaintiff to have committed a serious violation of its rules of conduct. … To rebut the presumption of an at-will employment relationship, the parties must “state clearly their intention” to limit the employer’s right to terminate. Id; Littell v.

Battles v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2019

This immunity applies except where expressly waived by statute, id., and Section 80 of the Compact, partially waives WMATA’s Eleventh Amendment immunity. D.C. Code § 9–1107.01(80). … Battles qualified as a regular employee rather than an “at-will” employee; therefore, his employment was terminable only for cause.

Kilby-Robb v. DeVos

246 F. Supp. 3d 182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Id. .That is, the plaintiff must be “ ‘markedly more qualified,’ ‘substantially more qualified,’ or ‘significantly better qualified’ than the successful candidate.” Id. (quoting Holcomb v. … “Given that [Pfeltz] was clearly qualified for the position, Kil-by-Robb has a high bar to meet in order to show that she was so much more qualified that a jury could reasonably conclude that [the Department] selected [Pfeltz

Rainey v. American Forest and Paper Ass'n, Inc.

26 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 1998

under AF & PA’s plan and the regulations;” this led counsel to conclude that “[t]his would clearly be an exempt duty.” … Kurtz as its representative 3 or by preparing its designees to represent what Kurtz knew—clearly violated Rule 30(b)(6).

United States v. Reynolds

249 F. Supp. 3d 466 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2017

Reynolds did not have chickenpox, they also indicated that he lacked immunity to the virus. Exhibit 2 to Petition [Dkt. No. 151-1]. It was this lack of immunity-and the resultant risk that Mr. … Reynolds’ allegations do not establish a fraud on the court, his motion under Rule 60(d)(3) shall be denied. III. OTHER CLAIMS Mr. Reynolds’ claims that Mr.