Case law

Mark v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2022

The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA) generally immunizes foreign sovereigns from suits in federal courts, but “that grant of immunity is subject to a number of exceptions.” Mohammadi v. … This qualifies as an extraordinary circumstance warranting an upward adjustment. See Thuneibat v. Syrian Arab Repub., 167 F.

Lacey v. Wing

360 F. Supp. 2d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2003

The plaintiffs clearly failed to properly serve defendants Goodspeed and Phelps. … Furthermore, United States courts may only obtain jurisdiction over a foreign state through the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act ("FSIA”). See Argentine Republic v.

American Historical Ass'n v. Peterson

876 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1995

But that is clearly not the situation here. THE COURT: [The’ Archivist] is only bound by the Presidential Records Act in the performance of her duties, is she not? MR. LEPLEY: Yes, Your Honor, she is. … The APA, however, explicitly establishes a cause of action for private parties seeking judicial review of agency action, including review of whether such action is “contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

Truesdale v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2009

In relevant part, the Report and Recommendation stated: The Indictment, with regard to the CCE charge in Count I clearly stated that the offense occurred, “From January 1987, and … established in the Department of Justice a repository of records of TRUESDALE’s 21 U.S.C.

Hancock v. Washington Hospital Center

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2012

According to WHC, this precludes Hancock from establishing that she was a “qualified individual” under the ADA. … But as set forth above, the date of Hancock’s termination is clearly in dispute, and that dispute is material to Hancock’s ADA claims. In addition, it is also clearly disputed whether Mr.

Spencer v. Schlesinger

374 F. Supp. 840 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 23, 1974

. *842 They also seek to establish a class action under Fed.R.Civ.P. 23(b)(2) and Local Rule 1-13(b). 2 This Court’s jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16(e) and 28 U.S.C. § 1343 (4) (1970). 3 In addition … This contention is far wide of the mark, for § 713.215 clearly envisions only specific individual claims of discrimination within the Congressinally-mandated regulatory framework of 5 C.F.R. §§ 713.211 to 713.222.

Hamilton v. City of Washington, District of Columbia

852 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 2012

territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges or immunities secured … Plaintiff Hamilton testified in his deposition that after he requested to be reinstated, a less qualified Caucasian was assigned to the position. Hamilton Dep., Pls.’ Ex. 1 at 37-39.

Byrd v. Bacerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2024

Chambers, 35 F.4th at 875 (“Brown’s approach is clearly mistaken.”). … (let alone more qualified) for those particular opportunities.”

Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 25 v. Smith

594 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 1984

The Supreme Court has recently affirmed that “matters relating ‘to the conduct of foreign relations ... are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or … Under the Refugee Act of 1980, the Attorney General was required to establish asylum procedures by June 1, 1980. These procedures were established, and are found at 8 C.F.R. Parts 108, 207, 208, and 209.

Mansfield v. Weinberger

398 F. Supp. 965 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 1975

In Salfi , since the claimant had not been married to the deceased wage earner for more than nine months, she was forever precluded from qualifying for and receiving social security survivor’s benefits. … In view of this disposition on the merits, the Court has no occasion to resolve defendant’s contention that a retroactive award of SSI benefits would be barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity.

Yang v. Spahn

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 2023

“[T]o establish ‘constructive discharge,’ the plaintiff . . . must show that the abusive working environment became so intolerable that [their] resignation qualified as a fitting response.” Id. at 134. … Proposed APA Claim Generally, when a plaintiff challenges agency action, the APA provides a cause of action for the plaintiff and a waiver of sovereign immunity by the government. See Am. Rd. & Transp.

United States v. Cabell

890 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 1995

Under USSG § 3El.l(a) the Court may decrease a defendant’s offense level by two levels “[i]f the defendant clearly demonstrates acceptance of responsibility for his offense.” USSG § 3El.l(a). … Such amount was the basis for establishing the Defendant’s offense level. The Defendant does not, however, admit to participation in a conspiracy nor is he charged with such.

Bowden v. Clough

658 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2009

As the plaintiff admits, he is clearly larger than the only woman on the staff, PL’s Opp’n, Ex. 5 (Bowden Dep. … The Court must therefore find that the plaintiff has not established that a reasonable jury could find that he was “significantly better qualified for the job” than was the successful candidate.

In Re: Navy Chaplaincy

928 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2013

That system "seeks to manage officers' .careers to provide the Navy with the best qualified personnel through three critical personnel decisions … (n[Plaintiffs] have clearly alleged an intentional preference.") (emphasis added); id.

Sledge v. United States Bureau of Prisons

883 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2012

The plaintiff has the burden of establishing jurisdiction. See, e.g., Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994). … Under Gaubert, many of these cases reason that because 18 U.S.C. § 4042(a) “is an established governmental policy . . .

Kyler v. Commissioner of Social Security Administration

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.”

Koniag, Inc. v. Kleppe

405 F. Supp. 1360 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 1975

The Area Director found them qualified. … No challenge to this is raised by the unlisted villages, which must be “established” villages to qualify for benefits, 43 U.S.C. § 1610 (b)(3) (A) (Supp. Ill, 1973).

Singletary v. District of Columbia

800 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 2011

A municipality is not immune from liability under § 1983. … The Court declared that governmental bodies are not wholly immune, and it also established the important principle that liability could not be vicarious.

United States v. Ball

962 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2013

To qualify for release pending appeal, then, the defendants must show that the statutory requirements of 18 U.S.C. § 3143 (b) are met and that there are “exceptional reasons” for release. 5 See United States v. … FLIGHT RISK AND DANGER TO THE COMMUNITY For the defendants to qualify for release under the Bail Reform Act, the court must find “by clear and convincing evidence that the person is not likely to flee or pose a danger to

Freedom Path, Inc v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2025

There, the Supreme Court pointed to the “onerous” administrative and regulatory “burdens[]” imposed by section 527 regulations, which collectively meant that “a corporation may not be able to establish a PAC in time to make … if it was construed to mean “expenditures for communications that in express terms advocate the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate for federal office.”