Case law

Adams Ex Rel. Adams v. District of Columbia

231 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2002

To reach this goal, Congress conditioned funding on school districts establishing procedures to safeguard the students. … The Buckhannon holding does not overturn this circuit’s established precedent that a court can authorize attorney’s fees for a party that prevailed during an administrative hearing. Id.

Smith v. District of Columbia

249 F. Supp. 3d 106 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 6, 2017

In this case, by contrast, the District identifies no such .submarket, instead acquiescing in the notion that the litigation at issue qualifies as complex federal litigation (as to which the Laffey Matrices apply). … And therefore, the Magistrate Judge’s decision to apply the LSI Laffey Matrix was clearly erroneous and contrary to law.

Brookens v. Solis

635 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2009

Plaintiff alleges that the Court erroneously (1) required him to establish a prima facie case in his complaint and weighed the evidence regarding his claims of denial of details and desk audits (see Pl.’s Mot. to Alter or … However, that is clearly not the case. See, e.g., Brookens v. Solis, No. 08-5527, 2009 WL 2414420 , *1, 2009 U.S.App. LEXIS 10048, *l-*2 (D.C.Cir. May 8, 2009) (per curiam) (“Brookens I ”); Dunning v.

United States v. Quinn

537 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2008

The government declined to give immunity, and Quinn thereafter unsuccessfully requested this Court to compel the government to immunize Tatum. See Def.’s Ex. B at 748:2-13. … The government had clearly and consistently confirmed that it would call Tatum in its case-in-ehief.

Children's Hospital Association of Texas v. Price

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2020

The Final Rule establishes that payments by Medicare and private insurers are to be included in calculating a hospital’s “costs incurred.” 82 Fed. … immunity, a well-established legal rule that trumps the new rule of law . . . , or (4) a principle of law . . . that limits the principle of retroactivity itself. 59 F.3d at 1288 (quoting Hyde, 514 U.S. at

United States v. Bailey

209 F. Supp. 3d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2016

First, the supposed misstatements cited by [the defendant] are immaterial Second, the jury’s decision to convict [the defendant] necessarily established that probable cause to arrest and indict [the defendant] did exist … Additionally, the defendant contends that the drug evidence presented at trial was inadmissible because ‘“cocaine obtained by state/MPD officers during a warrantless search . . . would have violated [his] immunity from unreasonable

District of Columbia v. Proud Boys International, L.L.C.

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2023

The District says it “easily qualifies as a ‘party so injured.’” Id. at 33. But reliance on that term alone does not advance the ball. … Trump, No. 22-cv-11 (APM), Compl., ECF No. 1, at 44–45, but the defendant in that case, President Trump, only moved to dismiss on grounds of absolute immunity, id., Def.’s Mem. of Law in Support of Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss,

Barbosa v. Drug Enforcement Administration

541 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2008

All information that “applies to a particular individual” would qualify for consideration under this exemption. U.S. Dep’t of State v. … In light of the applicability of exemption 7(C), the "clearly unwarranted" standard of exemption 6 need not be addressed. 3 .

Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co.

594 F. Supp. 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 1984

The sham exception to antitrust immunity established in the Noerr-Pennington-Trucldng Unlimited line of cases does not extend to genuine attempts to secure governmental action, even though the motive may be anticompetitive … The patent protest clearly was not sham, and no attempt to monopolize occurred.

HENRY SPEN & CO., INC. v. Laird

354 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 10, 1973

It is clearly entitled to do so under case law of this Circuit. A. G. Schoonmaker Co., Inc., et al. v. Resor, 144 U.S.App.D.C. 250 , 445 F.2d 726 (1971). … The Comptroller General and the agency obviously believe it is the bidder’s intent as of June 2 which must be established by clear and convincing evidence.

DeVito v. Shultz

300 F. Supp. 381 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 29, 1969

While this remedy is exclusive it does not follow that the Federal Courts are necessarily without power or jurisdiction to protect aggrieved parties such as plaintiffs here if it should clearly appear that the Secretary has … very exclusivity of the remedy serves to emphasize the necessity of some degree of Court supervision To rule otherwise would enable the Secretary to frustrate the will of Congress; it would leave the Secretary’s conduct immune

United States v. Watt

911 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 1995

The multiplicity doctrine in this Circuit is clearly established in Bridges. … The government has also clearly established the relevance of this evidence and the absence of prejudice to the defendant.

Philipp v. Federal Republic of Germany

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2022

Cir. 2018) (Hemerich II) (because a plaintiff is required to allege facts establishing an actual (not merely possible) violation of international law, a plaintiff has the burden of showing that their supposed rule was clearly … Plaintiff must also demonstrate that the “claimed exception is clearly established customary international law.” Id. at 32-33. 1. Who are the Consortium members?

Belkin v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Jurisdiction The Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) establishes the general principle that foreign states are immune from suit in United States courts. … The evidence also clearly establishes that the PIJ carried out the sequence of conduct that killed the decedent. See Clawson Report at 5-7. Dr.

In Re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation

787 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2011

Accordingly, the identities of such personnel will not qualify for protection pursuant to Parhat’s step two. … The government finally argues that the petitioners “have endeavored to demonstrate the supposed overbreadth of a category by reference to information that falls clearly outside its limiting terms.” Id.

State of Georgia v. US Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2023

This suggests that DOJ’s final litigation positions were not necessarily immune to lobbying. … Cir. 1997) (explaining consultants were former Presidents who “clearly qualifie[d] as . . . expert[s] on the implications of disclosure of presidential records”); Judicial Watch, 412 F.3d at 130 (noting consultants were

Perry v. Shinseki

District Court, District of Columbia · May 10, 2011

Qualifications Gap Perry can establish pretext if she can demonstrate that “a reasonable employer would have found the plaintiff to be significantly better qualified for the job.” Aka, 156 F.3d at 1294. … Thus, Murphy’s experience with remote locations and his superior management style were clearly relevant factors.

Hopkins v. Price Waterhouse

618 F. Supp. 1109 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 1985

One acknowledged “Ann has a clearly different personality,” but “[m]any male partners are worse than Ann (language and tough personality),” and people were only focusing on her profanity “because its a lady using foul language … Partnership consideration was clearly a privilege of plaintiffs employment covered by Title VIL Hishon v. King and Spaulding, 467 U.S. 69 , 104 S.Ct. 2229 , 81 L.Ed.2d 59 (1984).

Besson v. United States Department of Commerce

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2020

Nor is Ligado’s concern over “poaching” employees sufficient to establish its commercial nature. See id. … Defendant thus has failed to establish that the names of Ligado employees appearing in the CRADA qualify as “commercial” information for purposes of Exemption 4.

Doe v. Secretary of the Air Force

587 F. Supp. 1540 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 1984

SOVEREIGN IMMUNITY DOES NOT BAR AN AWARD OF FEES The government argues that sovereign immunity bars the award of attorneys’ fees because the services were performed prior to October 1, 1981, the effective date of the EAJA … Nor, in fact, does the standard require the Government to establish that its decision to litigate was based on a substantial probability of prevailing.” H.R.Rep. No. 1418, at 11, U.S.