Case law

Avirgan v. Hull

118 F.R.D. 257 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1987

During that testimony, Robinette admitted under grant of limited immunity, that he had accepted payments of several thousand dollars from retired Air Force Major General Richard V. … It is well established that a movant for a protective order must articulate specific and particular facts showing good cause, and not merely allege *262 “stereotyped and conclusory statements.”

Washington Post Co. v. Kleindienst

357 F. Supp. 779 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 1972

The Court there emphasized that news gathering qualifies under the First Amendment and newsmen must be afforded some protection for seeking out the news lest freedom of the press be eviscerated. … identified inmates at the federal correctional institutions in Danbury, Connecticut, and Lewisburg, Pennsylvania, made in reliance on Policy Statement 1220.1A, were in violation of the First Amendment, a new regulation is clearly

Jones v. Ashcroft

321 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2004

He contends that, although Title VII expressly waives the government’s sovereign immunity from suit for certain discrimination claims, employment decisions made in the interest of national security are exempt from the waiver … that the em *7 ployment and retention in employment of any civilian officer or employee within the department or agency is clearly consistent with the interests of the national security ...

Philips v. United States

59 F.2d 881 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 1932

. * • * Base prie- *883 es shall he determined hy a duly qualified representative of the contracting officer and a duly qualified representative of the purchaser, or, in event of failure to agree, by a third person selected … Indeed, the suit is for a breach of the contract, and the fraud alleged and proved is material as showing and establishing that fact.

Senatore v. Holder

225 F. Supp. 3d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2016

At the outset, the record clearly establishes that Senatore could have received adequate treatment in the Washington area. The FBI’s Chief Medical Officer, Dr. … “[I]t is the plaintiff’s burden to identify available positions and to demonstrate that she was qualified for those positions.” Faison v. Vance-Cooks, 896 F.

Clark v. Estate of Flach

604 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2009

Compliance with the notice requirement is mandatory and, because “it is in derogation of the common law principle of sovereign immunity,” it is “construed narrowly against claimants.” District of Columbia v. … Indeed, "[i]n such a case, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the criminal act was so foreseeable that a duty arises to guard against it.” Id. (emphasis in original).

Jung v. Bank of America, N.A.

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2018

Absolute Immunity First, the Court finds that all claims against the Pennsylvania state judges and U.S. Bankruptcy Judge John Thomas must be dismissed on grounds of absolute immunity. … As discussed above, these are judicial acts that trigger absolute immunity.

Hilska v. Jones

297 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2003

Not qualifying as frivolous are claims that are implausible, namely those that are doubtful or of questionable merit. Goosby v. … Although the plaintiffs claims are implausible, they technically do not qualify as “frivolous” for Rule 12(b)(1) purposes.

Udugampola v. Jacobs

795 F. Supp. 2d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2011

Courts have therefore long-held that “[s]uch matters are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Id. … To maintain a procedural due process claim, the plaintiffs must establish that the government has deprived them of a liberty interest. Gen. Elec. Co. v.

Rhodes v. Napolitano

656 F. Supp. 2d 174 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2009

The retaliation claims in plaintiffs complaint are clearly based on her prior EEOC activity in 2003 and 2004 and her union complaints. See Compl. at 6 ¶ 21. … These allegations are sufficient to establish that she engaged in prior protected activity. 9 2.

Doe v. Trump

275 F. Supp. 3d 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2017

As these two clauses make clear, transgender individuals are immunized only until the Secretary of Defense makes the “determination”; the “determination” must be made “as part of the implementation plan”; and the “implementation … The court found that the plaintiffs had satisfactorily established both premises.

Buzzfeed Inc. v. U.S. Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2019

Exemption 6 covers “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). … When an agency invokes both Exemptions 6 and 7(C), courts “focus” on Exemption 7(C) because it “establishes a lower bar for withholding material.” Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v.

Furniture Brands International, Inc. v. United States International Trade Commission

804 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2011

Customs would distribute the funds from the special account to "affected domestic producers" based on their share of "qualifying expenditures." Id. §§ 1675c(b)(4), (d)(3). … United States, 424 U.S. 800, 817 (1976) (citations omitted).2 Moreover, it is well-established in the D.C.

Leopold v. Central Intelligence Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2026

“The system of disclosure established by the FOIA is simple in theory. … Cir. 1998)); Pratt, 673 F.2d at 420 (establishing the two-prong test).

Nora v. Wolf

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 2020

Circuit to deal with this issue, it held that the right was not clearly established when Eric was murdered, and the officers were entitled to qualified immunity. Id. at 654. … immunity); Wood v.

Geter v. Government Printing Office

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2016

Geter’s complaint and opposition contain nebulous and equivocating language that fails to clearly set forth his reasonable accommodation claim. … Therefore, Geter is not a qualified individual under the ADA.

Franklin v. Pepco Holdings, Inc.

875 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2012

With respect to the second factor, Franklin’s eventual termination clearly constitutes an “adverse” action. See Baird v. Gotbaum, 662 F.3d 1246, 1248-49 (D.C. Cir. 2011). … However, the caselaw about temporal proximity applies when the plaintiff is relying only on that proximity to establish a connection. See, e.g., Thomas v.

National Railroad Passenger Corporation v. Fraternal Order of Police, Lodge 189

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2016

But as § 11 (c) (2) makes clear, the QSis are not established by Congress but by the Council of Inspectors General on Integrity and Efficiency. … Moreover, if the QSis, which are merely "professional standards developed by the [CIGIE]," conflict with a Congressional command, clearly, the QSis must yield. Id.

Gold v. Gallaudet College

630 F. Supp. 1176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 1986

Plaintiff must establish a prima facie case by demonstrating: (1) that she belonged to a protected class; (2) that she applied and was qualified for an available position; (3) that she was rejected for that position; and … Given the low burden placed on plaintiff to establish a prima facie ease, however, the Court is willing to accept that plaintiff was qualified for the position and that she therefore satisfied her initial burden.

Young v. United States Department of Labor

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2021

Prostate cancer does not qualify an employee for the SEC. See 42 C.F.R. § 83.0; 20 C.F.R. § 30.5(gg) (listing the twenty-two types of cancers that qualify for the SEC, none of which is prostate cancer). … Turning to the second Bennett prong, plaintiffs assert that legal consequences clearly flowed from HHS’s determination not to estimate doses for certain workers—namely, that this caused their DOL application for EEOICPA