Case law

United States v. Microsoft Corp.

87 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 3, 2000

Whether this zone of commercial activity actually qualifies as a market, “monopolization of which may be illegal,” depends on whether it includes all products “reasonably interchangeable by consumers for the same purposes … Clearly, this is not a desirable outcome. Similar concerns have motivated other courts, as well as the D.C.

Banneker Ventures, LLC v. Graham

253 F. Supp. 3d 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2017

Work-product immunity is held by the lawyer, not the client, although either may assert the doctrine during discovery. … “The party invoking the privilege, however, has the burden of proving that the memoranda qualify as work product.” Hager v. Bluefield Regional Medical Center, Inc., 170 F.R.D. 70, 76 (D.D.C. 1997).

Petties v. District of Columbia

268 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2003

The Transportation Administrator shall inform the Court whenever an established contract, agreement or provision(s) thereof clearly prevent the Transportation Administrator from carrying out the duties and responsibilities … The Transportation Administrator shall have the same immunity provided to District of Columbia public officials; and 13.

Mardirosian v. American Institute of Architects

474 F. Supp. 628 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 1979

can a true scope of services and the resulting compensation be fairly established. ... … Moreover, there is no question that even “state authorization, approval, encouragement, or participation in restrictive private conduct confers no antitrust immunity.” Cantor v.

Doe v. Rodgers, M.H.A.

139 F. Supp. 3d 120 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 2015

for Chevron deference but indicating that it might qualify for a lesser degree of deference pursuant to Skidmore). … Even if, contrary to Circuit law, Dr. ’Doe could establish that an Adverse Action Report in the National ■ Practitioner Data Bank qualified as a stigma for the purpose of the substantive due process analysis, the fact of

Horizon Lines, LLC v. United States

429 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2006

The statutory exemption at issue in this case, known as the Third Proviso, permits non-qualified vessels to transport *95 46 U.S.C. app. § 883. Another non-qualified shipper, Sunmar Shipping, Inc. … ASC contends that the Court clearly erred when it held that the Jones Act did not constitute an “embargo” as used in 28 U.S.C. § 1581 (1) and Kmart Corp. v.

Steele v. McHugh

192 F. Supp. 3d 151 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2016

The first three elements of Plaintiff’s prima facie case clearly are present—(1) Plaintiff is older than 40; (2) he was qualified for the position at CISA; and (3) he suffered an adverse employment action. … Nor must a court permit clearly deficient statistical evidence to go to a jury.

Vaskas v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2023

But Defendants’ declaration establishes that some of their records related to his child pornography conviction—and therefore within the scope of his request—included statutorily protected information about children, regardless … Plaintiff objects that “some records cannot qualify as intra-or-inter-agency memoranda” and suggests that they may be “communications with a nonagency third party.” Opp’n to MSJ at 8.

Nader v. McAuliffe

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2009

Opp’n at 8-14, arguing that their “allegations are sufficient to establish state action under a ‘public function’ test or a ‘joint action’ test,” id. at 13. … And as to the latter, while the defendants concede that the state officials performed a state function by enforcing the states’ ballot access laws, they submit that these officials’ actions are protected by qualified immunity

American Academy of Pediatrics v. Heckler

561 F. Supp. 395 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 1983

The instant regulation offends these established precepts to a remarkable extent. … The record tendered in support of the Secretary’s action here clearly establishes that many highly relevant factors central to any application of section 504 to medical care of newborn infants were not considered prior to

National Ass'n of Psychiatric Treatment Centers for Children v. Mendez

857 F. Supp. 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 1994

Defendants’ unrebutted affidavits establish, however, that OCHAM-PUS has not delegated such authority. … The referenced sections states that a qualified mental health provider must “practic[e] within the scope of his or her license.”

Arnold v. Moore

980 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 1997

McKinney, 509 U.S. 25, 35 , 113 S.Ct. 2475, 2481-82 , 125 L.Ed.2d 22 (1993) (holding that prisoner must establish both subjective and objective component to establish claim of deliberate indifference). … If true, these facts establish malicious and sadistic intent.

Ludlam v. United States Peace Corps

934 F. Supp. 2d 174 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2013

“Under [the] public-domain doctrine, materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.” Cottone v. … Cir. 1975) (finding an agency’s efforts to evaluate and change its personnel policies, rules and standards too amorphous to qualify as a process for the purposes of the deliberative process privilege).

Goodman v. Perpetual Building Association

320 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 1970

Clearly the evidence in this case does not establish that commissions to Perpetual for writing or placing of insurance on property on which it has loaned money is a rebate contemplated by the above-mentioned language. … Dahlen, 357 Pa. 143 , 53 A.2d 143 ), fair play clearly calls for the imposition of a trust in favor of the corporation.

United States v. Davis

763 F. Supp. 645 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 1991

The Government argued that the fact that Davis only “steered” Graves to the taller male does not immunize her from criminal responsibility. In support of this contention, the Government cited United States v. … Thus, while Copeland establishes that a steerer paid in kind may be responsible for the drugs found on the drug dealer that he or she helped, it does not establish that steerers are necessarily responsible for such drugs.

Noreen v. Sparks

103 F. Supp. 588 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 2, 1952

The intervening defendant contends that they cannot qualify as devisees under the will of the testatrix. It is its contention that, when Clara Elizabeth Constantine, Ada Amelia Hadel -and William K. … Clearly the wife of Cristodulo Constantine was not seized in deed or in law of the property here involved, and, therefore, he has no estate of curtesy therein.

Koch v. Donaldson

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 6, 2011

An individual is entitled to the protections of the Rehabilitation Act if he can establish that he is a qualified person with a disability; that he can perform the essential functions of his job with or without reasonable … Generally, to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory or retaliatory non-selection or failure to promote, plaintiff must show that (1) he is a member of a protected class; (2) he applied for and was qualified for

Pete v. United Mine Workers of America Welfare & Retirement Fund of 1950

352 F. Supp. 1294 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 1973

. *1296 The Trust Fund in question here was established by the National Bituminous Coal Wage Agreement of 1950, pursuant to 29 U.S.C. § 186 (c) (5) (1970). … Trustees have clearly been on notice that the signatory last employment requirement as applied by them might be arbitrary and capricious since the date of the first Roark decision, Roark v.

Associated Dog Clubs of New York State, Inc. v. Vilsack

44 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2014

An organization “‘may have standing in its own right to seek judicial relief from injury to itself and to vindicate whatever rights and immunities the association itself may enjoy.’” … The motion is clearly timely, which the breeding clubs do not dispute.

Day v. DC DEPT. OF CONSUMER

191 F. Supp. 2d 154 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2002

These defendants move to dismiss the complaint, invoking the qualified immunity defense. … This issue, then, is clearly in dispute.