Case law

Kruglov v. United States Customs & Border Protection

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2024

, ‘Exemption 7(C) is more protective of privacy than Exemption 6’ and thus establishes a lower bar for withholding material.” … Under FOIA, a record qualifies as a “law enforcement” record if (1) “the agency’s investigatory activities that g[a]ve rise to the documents . . .

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

Cognitive Professional Services Inc. v. U.S. Small Business Administration

254 F. Supp. 3d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 11, 2017

Notably, the plain text of the statute clearly suggests a background principle of exclusion, which the subordinate conjunction “unless” qualifies. See Kansas City Structural Steel Co. v. L.G. … (see Pl.’s Mem. at 5 (arguing that “the regulation puts the onus on the applicant to show that it ‘qualifies’”); id.

Vaughan v. Amtrak

892 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2012

Utilizes superior interpersonal skills to communicate clearly and effectively with passengers and crew to insure employee and customer satisfaction in both ideal and off schedule … There is no dispute that plaintiff was qualified for the LSA position.

Kifafi v. Hilton Hotels Retirement Plan

107 F. Supp. 3d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2015

(Feb. 4, 2015), at 25, was clearly erroneous or manifestly unjust. viii. … The third letter, which Defendants sent in response to claims that are not part of this case, much more clearly indicates that the claimant does not qualify for benefits because he or she does “not meet the minimum number

Anheuser-Busch, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service

493 F. Supp. 549 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 1980

Admittedly, not all Federal anti-disclosure statutes are “qualifying” statutes under Exemption (b)(3). American Jewish Congress v. Kreps, 187 U.S.App.D.C. 413 , 574 F.2d 624 (1978). … Clearly, § 6103 refers to “particular types of matters to be withheld” and establishes “particular criteria for withholding.”

Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. England

221 F.R.D. 255 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2004

BACKGROUND 2 In this consolidated action, 3 the plaintiffs’ claims fall into three principal categories: First Amendment Establishment Clause claims, Free Exercise Clause claims and Equal Protection Clause claims. 4 Adair … Although the plaintiffs clearly have a strong interest in appealing the dismissed claims as soon as possible, the court cannot say that this interest outweighs the need to avoid piecemeal appeals. Camm v.

Thompson v. Shinseki

169 F. Supp. 3d 170 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2016

qualified’ than the successful candidate.” … Circuit has noted that “[a]n inability to clearly articulate the reasoning behind the specific allocation of numerical scores” may speak “less to any effort to mask an alternative unlawful purpose behind [a] decision and

United States v. Clipper

179 F. Supp. 3d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 2016

second 10 qualifying felony. … and the drugs found in his car was not his.”), but he must demonstrate, “as the statute requires, that the injustice would be ‘unmistakable, clear, plain, or indisputable and requir[ing] that the opposite conclusion be clearly

Cooperative Services, Inc. v. United States Department of Housing & Urban Development

410 F. Supp. 865 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 1976

Under the Section 202 program, a qualified sponsor submitted an application to HUD for funding. … Nor does the doctrine of sovereign immunity, as recently enunciated by the Supreme Court in Edelman v.

Tran Ex Rel. Estate of Le v. Carr

708 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2010

Le qualifies as an insured under the Policy. The plaintiff argues that because the Policy lists Ms. … Do therefore qualifies as a named insured. PL’s Mem. at 5; see also Defs.’ Mem., Ex. A at 5.

Lazaridis v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2010

Circuit reasoned that in crafting § 552(f), “Congress evidently viewed the four specified classes as examples of ‘establishments in the executive branch,’ so that an entity clearly outside the executive branch would not … qualify even if it could otherwise be shoehorned into the concept of a ‘Government controlled corporation.’” 125 F.3d at 879.

United States v. Domenech

District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2017

Pérez’s statements established two competing narratives. … During the 911 call, Pérez sounds clearly distressed, concerned about her safety, and in need of medical attention. See Gov’t Ex. 11.

Taitt v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2023

Supp. 3d at 172–73 (summarizing background sovereign immunity principles). … The terrorism exception establishes “that a foreign state is not immune in ‘any case’ in which ‘money damages are sought against a foreign state for personal injury or death that was caused by an act of torture, extrajudicial

United States v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co.

524 F. Supp. 1381 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 1981

Testimony by FCC witnesses on each of these three topics clearly or arguably raises questions of privilege. … If not directly, then as a part of the qualified privilege equation. See note 14, infra. 12 .

Labat-Anderson, Inc. v. United States

346 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 22, 2004

Prison Indus., 199 F.3d 461, 463 (D.C.Cir.1999) (“Jurisdiction must be established before a federal court may proceed to any other question.”); Tuck v. Pan Am. … United States, 541 U.S. 176 , 124 S.Ct. 1587, 1595 , 158 L.Ed.2d 338 (2004) (“Because we have held that the text of the statutory reservation clearly excludes sand and gravel, we have no occasion to resort to legislative

United States v. Brooks

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2022

Defendant’s “serious heart condition” also fails to qualify as an extraordinary and compelling reason. … While no clearly established line has been drawn by the courts, the numbers cited in Defendant’s Motion concerning the situation at FCI Danbury are nowhere near the same high- risk level as the previously mentioned cases

Searcy v. United States

668 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2009

Although the Department of the Treasury has established control accounts for trust fund operations, the BOP is responsible for managing the trust fund. … Jan. 8, 2009) (dismissing action for monetary relief from the federal government on the ground that sovereign immunity bars such a claim). 2 .

Hopkins v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2010

District of Columbia law has long established that "unless a contrary contractual intent is clearly expressed, all employment is at-will." Turner v. Federal Express Corp., 539 F. … Here, the disclaimer contained in BCBSA HR materials clearly establishes that the HR manuals and distributed polices do not alter any employee's at-will status at BCBSA.

Smith v. Athena Construction Group, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2022

For example, on a motion to dismiss, once an official claiming qualified immunity satisfies the burden of raising the defense, the burden shifts to the plaintiff to show the defendant is not entitled to qualified immunity … Relator therefore fails to carry his burden to establish that he is an “original source” under the FCA.