Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersdcd

8,912 results

0.75s

  • 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).

    Reversed by a later decision, 192 F.3d 1005 (1999)Cited 6 timesPublished
  • 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

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • 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

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Shell Oil Co. v. U.S. Department of Labor

    106 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2000

    Because the question is clearly not “capable of repetition, yet evading review,” the issue of OSHA’s pre-approval enforcement policy is moot. B. … Since Askew, general state regulation that affects maritime commerce and regulation has been universally upheld when it does not clearly conflict with federal law. See Ray v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Mercadante v. Xe Services, LLC

    78 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2015

    By arguing that the delegation agreement is not valid, Plaintiffs satisfy the threshold requirement established by Rent-A-Center, see 561 U.S. at 72. … Plaintiffs do not cite any North Carolina case standing for the proposition that a qualifying mistake could be one about the contract itself.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Dynalantic Corp. v. United States Department of Defense

    937 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 1996

    Although plaintiff qualifies as a “small business” as that term is defined by the SBA, 15 U.S.C. § 631 et seq., it has neither applied, nor otherwise been certified, to participate in the 8(a) program. … “[Qualifying under the 8(a) program’s economic disadvantage test is not relevant to standing.

    Cited 14 timesPublished
  • Rothenberg v. Aero Mayflower Transit Co.

    495 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1980

    This sort of evidence,'however, is clearly inadmissible for the purposes for which defendant proffers it. . … Plaintiff has failed to establish that there are generalized expectations, see Nader v.

    Cited 16 timesPublished
  • Jaffe v. CIA

    573 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 1983

    All of the statutes qualify as exempting statutes under the (b)(3) exemption. The Court considers each in turn. … . § 403 (d)(3), establishes withholding criteria and refers to types of materials to be withheld. Section 102(d)(3) therefore qualifies for treatment under part (B) of FOIA exemption (b)(3). Military Audit Project v.

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • Loyola University Medical Center v. Azar

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2024

    Those programs were all appropriately accredited and otherwise qualify under the Sec- retary’s promulgated regulations, so they would add 6.17 slots to Loyola’s 1996 FTE cap. Id. at 32. … plausible way to read Section 422 to mean that Loyola’s FTE caps for all later years—including 2006 and 2007—are frozen forever because they were not Section 422 “determinations made under this paragraph” rendering them immune

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Loyola University Medical Center v. Azar

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2024

    Those programs were all appropriately accredited and otherwise qualify under the Sec- retary’s promulgated regulations, so they would add 6.17 slots to Loyola’s 1996 FTE cap. Id. at 32. … plausible way to read Section 422 to mean that Loyola’s FTE caps for all later years—including 2006 and 2007—are frozen forever because they were not Section 422 “determinations made under this paragraph” rendering them immune

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Pettiford v. Secretary of the Navy

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2011

    In addition to the foregoing standard of best qualified, all Marines recommended for promotion must be fully qualified. … The term “fully qualified” is not an arithmetic formula.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Dick v. Holder

    67 F. Supp. 3d 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2014

    Supp. 90, 105 (D.D.C. 1989) (stating that “[r]eputational injury simply does not qualify” as an adverse determination under § 552a(g)(1)(C)). … Clearly, such “attempts” do not satisfy the processes set out by § 552a(d)(3) and the DOJ’s regulations, 28 C.F.R. § 16.46. 31 jurisdiction over the claim.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Cox v. Department of Treasury

    District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 6, 2021

    FOIA requires that federal agencies comply with requests to make their records available to the public, unless such “information is exempted under [one of nine] clearly delineated statutory language.” Id. … Thus, Plaintiffs cannot credibly allege that they “duly filed” a timely claim with the IRS to establish subject matter jurisdiction. See United States v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Zeynali v. Blinken

    District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2022

    Compl. ¶ 28; see also Pl.’s Mem. at 10 (arguing that after he “was randomly selected as a diversity lottery winner” and 4 Although not clearly labelled as such in the Complaint, plaintiff’s claim is best characterized … That statutory section provides only that “Aliens who qualify, through random selection, for a visa under [the DV program] shall remain eligible to receive such visa only through the end of the specific fiscal year for

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • American Pilots' Ass'n v. Gracey

    631 F. Supp. 827 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 1986

    . § 3703 (1985) to promulgate the rule establishing this particular subcategory. A. … The physical examination and currency of knowledge requirements are borrowed from those now required of first-class pilots, who clearly qualify as licensed pilots under § 7101.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • American Federation of Government Employees v. Shinseki

    821 F. Supp. 2d 337 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 2011

    FLRA, 851 F.2d 1486 (D.C.Cir.1988), the District of Columbia Circuit construed § 7421(a) of the VHA personnel statute as granting the Secretary “unfettered discretion” to establish regulations regarding the working conditions … Specifically, the Union asserted that “one of the matters clearly unaffected by the [§ ]7422(b) exclusions is the right of any federal employee, including a VA professional employee, ‘to form, join, or assist any labor organization

    Cited 3 timesPublished
  • Burlington Insurance v. Okie Dokie, Inc.

    368 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2005

    An opposing party’s objection qualifies as “substantially justified” if “there is a genuine dispute or if reasonable people could differ as to the appropriateness of the contested action.” Pierce v. … Thomas is not an agent with the authority to bind Burlington and the question of whether Burlington would have issued the policy to Okie Dokie is clearly in dispute.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • United States v. Michael

    788 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 1992

    Additionally, the defendant moved for a judgment of acquittal on the grounds that the government had failed to establish that the substance was cocaine base. … Therefore, the Court finds that the expert testimony offered by the DEA chemist was sufficient to establish that the defendant possessed cocaine base.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands v. United States of America

    District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 25, 2009

    Thus, the injury alleged by the CNMI is redressable, and the plaintiff clearly has standing. … But it declined the CNMI’s invitation to read Sections 103 and 105 as “carving out an area of ‘local affairs’ immune from federal legislation.” Id. at 755.

    Cited 0 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.