Case law

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.

Maeztu v. Brownell

132 F. Supp. 751 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 1955

In the second place, it appears clearly to have been the purpose of the Congress and the applicable regulations in force that, where there is an application for suspension of deportation, the hearing officer should discuss … In the case of an alien qualified for voluntary departure or suspension of deportation under Section 242 or 244 of the Immigration and Nationality Aet the determination as to whether the applieation for voluntary departure

Nader v. the Democratic Nat. Committee

555 F. Supp. 2d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2008

As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing. … The defendants (rather than the Nader-Camejo 2004 Campaign) are allegedly responsible for Nader’s campaign loan, because Nader clearly alleges that but for the defendants’ tor-tious activity he would not have been compelled

Porter v. Sebelius

192 F. Supp. 3d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2016

That framework requires Plaintiff to first establish a prima f acie case of racial discrimination or retaliation under Title VII. … Cir. 2008). 3 While the Plaintiff sometimes seems to refer to "failure to obtain a reasonable accommodation" as a separate claim, the term is clearly included in his claim of retaliation.

Perry v. International Brotherhood of Teamsters

247 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2017

IBT maintains that the role of a Trustee is “well-established” and clearly satisfies the exemption requirements. … The basis of Perry’s Complaint is that IBT failed to “bridge” him sufficient time to qualify him for retiree health coverage.

Henkel v. United States Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2025

“[C]ertain harms readily qualify as concrete injuries under Article III.” Id. at 425. “The most obvious are traditional tangible harms, such as physical harms and monetary harms.” Id. … “And most importantly,” the FCRA cases did not “involve[] the sovereign immunity canon.” Id. The Department concedes that “the sovereign immunity canon does not apply here.” Reply at 18 n.1.

Adams v. United States

796 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2011

But, as defendants point out, “ ‘ [t]o have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire’ and ‘more than a unilateral expectation of it. … See Jones, 713 F.Supp.2d at 37 (“Although individuals do have a protected property interest in legal causes of action, such as those for age discrimination, ‘the State remains free to create substantive defenses or immunities

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).

D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. United States

531 F. Supp. 808 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 1982

The statute and its legislative history clearly state that an action will also be deemed to have accrued at any time plaintiff should have known of the claim of the United States. … case, the hearing, the maps showing the land and approval for closing, all interim proceedings, and the eventual order closing the property and transferring title to the Park Service were all publicly noted according to established

Empresa Cubana Exportadora v. Dept. of Treasury

606 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2009

Accordingly, the change in policy was clearly not arbitrary agency action. … Bancec contended that it should be able to collect on the letter of credit as a separate juridical entity but that it should not be subject to a set-off because the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act immunizes an instrumentality

In re United Mine Workers of America Employee Benefit Plans Litigation

156 F.R.D. 507 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 1994

Allegedly, the prosecutors released the other five documents they had obtained from the company’s former vice-president pursuant to an immunity agreement. … Defendants interpret In re Sealed Case as establishing a bright-line, “per se” rule for this Circuit.

Atanus v. Sebelius

652 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2009

A non-moving party, however, must establish more than the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 . … Defendant offered three legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not placing plaintiff on the best-qualified list: (1) plaintiffs score was too low to qualify her through the DE process, which is based solely on an exam

Federal Trade Commission v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

241 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 15, 2017

generic drug, and financial analyses used to evaluate the settlement agreement, the Court concluded that these documents were “an integral part of the litigation” and that information used to assess settlement options “clearly … Boehringer’s appeal succeeds, the injury it identifies – that the FTC’s review of the documents in question may, in some way, impact its decision to bring an enforcement action at the conclusion of its investigation – is not immune

National Mining Association v. Office of Hearings and Appeals

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 2011

NMA 15 contends that OHA’s November 28, 2003 decision reconsidering the burden of proof allocations 16 in the five regulations at issue in light of Greenwich Collieries qualifies under the reopener 17 18 doctrine … found to be— 4 arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; 5 contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity

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.

Evans v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

674 F. Supp. 2d 175 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2009

Evans into the roadway in much the same way as did a driver immediately behind the motorcycle, who clearly saw it. … Evans has clearly alleged a cause of action for negligence, as well as elements upon which a jury could find that, even if Mr.

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.

Trilogy Federal, LLC v. Civitasdx LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2025

That is not the law, and Trilogy has not argued why its communications in particular should be protected absent such blanket immunity. … Those facts might establish both the misconduct and the injury, but they lack a link and thus do not plausibly allow for a causal inference.

Sturm v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2025

And, because Sturm’s “Depressive Disorder did not separately qualify for a disability rating of 30% or greater, the Board determined [Sturm] did not qualify for placement on the disability retirement list.” A.R. 4. … This is most clearly established by Dr. Bennett’s assignment of the Personality Disorder as the primary condition.”).

Saint-Gobain Performance Plastics Europe v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2021

As a result, Saint-Gobain asserts that Judge Stark’s previous determination must stand unless this Court determines it “was clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice.” … The Republic now argues that reconsideration of this decision is warranted because it was “clearly wrong.” Def.’s Mot. at 22.