Case law

Waldo v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2024

person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws, shall be liable to the party injured in an action at law.” 42 U.S.C. § 1983. … But, when using voluntary guidelines as a reference for standard of care, the court must exercise “caution” to “ensure that they are clearly relevant and applicable to the circumstances presented.” Id.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 28, 2022

Here, the Christenson Declaration clearly establishes that the Bureau made such assurances. … D (Vaughn Index) at 1–3 (records 4 and 6), which clearly qualify as medical files of either staff or inmates.

In Re: Dirisu Ojo Momoh

564 B.R. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2017

Indeed, “[w]here there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” Anderson, 470 U.S. at 574; accord Moore, 24 F. Supp. 3d at 94. … Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305, 321–22 (2009) (explaining that documents such as “police reports generated by law enforcement officials . . . do not qualify as business or public records” because, although kept in the regular

Rawlings v. Hall

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2011

The defendants cite these decisions in support of their argument that because Clay and Haskel are both MPD officers, they are immune from civil conspiracy claims. … The shooting cannot have simultaneously established a special relationship with Rawlings and violated that relationship.

Douglas v. Baker

809 F. Supp. 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 1992

The government will carry its burden if it can establish that it was “justified to a degree that it could satisfy a reasonable person.” Pierce v. … Martinez has clearly disregarded the Supreme Court’s admonition that a “request for attorney’s fees should not result in a second major litigation.” Hensley v.

Flood Ex Rel. T.F. v. District of Columbia

172 F. Supp. 3d 197 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2016

reimbursement qualify as “complex federal litigation.” … According to the plaintiff, these declarations offer the “best evidence of the prevailing market rate” and “clearly establish that litigators in the District’s IDEA community charges between USAO and LSI Laffey rates and

American Federation of Government Employees v. Hawley

543 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

See Albright, 732 F.2d at 186 (declining to consider “whether non-economic injuries or damages other than out-of-pocket expenses could qualify as ‘actual damages’ under Section 552a(g)(4)).” … Defendants argue that the court should interpret “actual damages” narrowly, as is required in construing a waiver of sovereign immunity, to mean only out of pocket expenses, not emotional damages.

Elam v. C & P TELEPHONE CO.

609 F. Supp. 938 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 1984

To establish a prima facie case of discriminatory denial of transfer, Plaintiff must establish that (1) he applied for an available position; (2) he was qualified for an available position; and (3) he was rejected under circumstances … Plaintiff, however, failed to establish at trial that he was qualified for the position that Maloney received.

First American Corp. v. Al-Nahyan

2 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 1998

his concept of implied *65 waiver of the privileges set forth in [the Sealing Statute] by instituting a civil action that places in issue elements common to both the civil action and criminal prosecution has become firmly established … Clifford and Altman have presented this Court with no basis to suggest that the relevance finding was clearly erroneous.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Kenton Capital, Ltd.

69 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 1998

As the SEC has established that this figure is a reasonable approximation of unlawful profits, the burden of proof shifts to Defendants to clearly demonstrate that this figure is not a reasonable approximation. … The undisputed facts, however, clearly establish that Wallace was a control person, and therefore liable for disgorgement of whatever funds Kenton received because he cannot show that he "did not induce [Kenton’s] violations

Glass v. Peters

District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2011

Clearly, this cannot suffice to withstand a motion for summary judgment. … It is now well-established that where, as here, an employer has proffered a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its actions, the district court should bypass the question of whether the plaintiff has established a prima

Daskalea v. Washington Humane Society

480 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2007

The interim order cited by Plaintiffs in their opposition brief addresses a separate legal question; that is, whether the Executive Director of the Washington Humane Society “was entitled to qualified immunity from suit” … It was not until their reply brief was filed that they argued that they are "entitled to qualified immunity” if "the Washington Humane Society is deemed to be a governmental agency.” Scnoor Reply Br. at 3.

United States v. Newman

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2017

To further these goals, the FCC established the “new entrant bidding credit.” … But the government does clearly allege that Mr. Newman was impermissibly involved at this earlier time as well.

Martin v. Donley

886 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2012

The APA and the Tucker Act both waive sovereign immunity, allowing plaintiffs to sue the United States in specific circumstances. … In the alternative, the defendant contends that even if the Board for Correction’s decision in the instant case was a departure from precedent, “the [Board for Correction] clearly predicated its decision on considerations

County of Los Angeles v. Shalala

992 F. Supp. 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 1998

Each year, the Secretary of the United States Department of Health and Human Services (“the Secretary”) establishes thresholds for determining when a specific ease qualifies as an outlier. 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(A)(i)-( … At the beginning of a fiscal year, the Secretary, in her discretion, establishes the “fixed” thresholds, above which a hospital discharge qualifies as an “outlier.” See 42 U.S.C. § 1395ww(d)(5)(A)(i)-(ii).

Atanus v. Leavitt

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. … Defendant offered three legitimate, nondiscriminatory reasons for not placing plaintiff on the best-qualified list: (1) plaintiff's score was too low to qualify her through the DE process, which is based solely on an exam

White v. United States Department of Justice

606 F. Supp. 880 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 1985

Defendant next asserts that even as to the individual who is the subject of the report, the Parole Commission’s copy of the presentence report is protected by a “qualified privilege” against disclosure, and therefore that … presentence report prior to his parole hearing under the PCRA, and the Commission’s apparent discretion to allow the inmate to retain a copy of that report, defendant’s assumption that the Commission could assert some nebulous “qualified

National Motor Freight Traffic Ass'n v. United States

242 F. Supp. 601 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 1965

This Court there held that as long as forwarders proffer all of these services, they have fulfilled their obligation under their certificate and do qualify as freight forwarders. … Plaintiffs urge, however, that the Commission erred in concluding that the burden was upon the plaintiffs to establish the material allegations of their complaint.

Amduso v. Republic of Sudan

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2014

This Court has entered final judgment on liability under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”) in this civil action and several related cases—brought by victims of the bombings and their families—against the Republic … To establish a prima facie case of intentional infliction of emotional distress under D.C.

Campbell v. District of Columbia

972 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2013

Campbell alleges that CGI had a “pre-established relationship” with Mr. … At this meeting, it was brought to CGI’s attention that the District requires that at least 35 percent of any contract over $250,000 go to a qualified small, local, or disadvantaged business, known as a certified business