Case law

Esmaeilzadeh v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2025

Circuit has not clearly answered this question. See Verizon v. FCC, 770 F.3d 961, 968 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting the tension between D.C. Cir. … Clearly, then, the INA and its implementing regulations contemplate further “administrative processing” after a refusal under Section 221(g).

Naseri v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2025

Circuit has not clearly answered this question. See Verizon v. FCC, 770 F.3d 961, 968 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting the tension between D.C. Cir. … Clearly, then, the INA and its implementing regulations contemplate further “administrative processing” after a refusal under Section 221(g).

National Treasury Employees Union v. Horner

659 F. Supp. 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 1986

Dep’t of Air Force, 784 F.2d 388 (Fed.Cir.1986), that if an employee can “ ‘clearly establish’ that he would in fact have been promoted,” he may be entitled to retroactive back pay. Id. at 390 . … In the face of Testan’s unequivocal language, this Court declines to base a finding of standing on the tenuous theory advanced by plaintiff — that the now-converted customs inspectors may be able to clearly establish that

Laverpool v. Taylor Bean & Whitaker Reo LLC

229 F. Supp. 3d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2017

Here, Plaintiff’s proposed amendments attempt, it appears, to more clearly articulate his claims as including facial challenges to the constitutionality of the Georgia foreclosure statutes. … Plaintiff’s proposed amendments to the complaint do nothing to establish his claims as independent of the state court judgment that he is barred from challenging in the district court.

Hinton v. Corrections Corporation of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2009

had to qualify as an emergency to be processed as such. … The plaintiff does not dispute that he received an Inmate Handbook containing a summary of the grievance process, and the record shows clearly that he had access to the Inmate Handbook and was familiar with parts of it.

Anglers Conservation Network v. Pritzker

70 F. Supp. 3d 427 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2014

An action by the Mid-Atlantic Council does not qualify as an "agency action" under the APA because, a-s Plaintiffs appear to concede, Pls.' … § 70-6(1), Plaintiffs still have -24- not identified any such inaction that would qualify for judicial review.

Ortiz v. Fed. Bureau of Prisons

290 F. Supp. 3d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 5, 2017

A plaintiff can establish a prima facie disparate treatment claim by showing: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) the employer took an adverse employment action against her … Ortiz clearly had a good faith belief that the Defendants' actions were discriminatory and thus violated the law.

Carroll v. England

321 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 2004

Clearly then the circumstances set forth in Count III and Carroll’s EEOC complaint are not reasonably related. … Circuit clearly held otherwise — even denial of a discretionary bonus may be an adverse employment action. See Russell v.

Independent Bankers Ass'n of America v. Farm Credit Administration

986 F. Supp. 633 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 24, 1997

Furthermore, to ensure flexibility, Congress never defined in the statute what qualifies as an “on-farm operating need.” … This clearly is an area over which the FCA has regulatory authority.

Myers v. Alutiiq International Solutions, LLC

811 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2011

Plaintiff notes that Strickland’s salary exceeded that of more qualified Alutiiq employees. Id. … Court of Appeals does not clearly indicate which of the six original counts were brought against the individual defendant, 702 A.2d at 160 .

United States v. Ausby

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 2019

These principles are “a well-established part of our constitutional jurisprudence,” id. at 465, and have “long been settled,” Lockhart v. Nelson, 488 U.S. 33, 38 (1988). … The Supreme Court has stated clearly that, “the Double Jeopardy Clause’s general prohibition against successive prosecutions does not prevent the government from retrying a defendant who succeeds in getting his first conviction

Ashtari v. Pompeo

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 23, 2020

Circuit has “has not clearly determined whether action taken pursuant to the Proclamation is reviewable,” Moghaddam, 424 F. … Ashtari qualifies for a waiver. That inaction is subject to and reviewable under the APA. See Thomas, 438 F.

Chacoty v. Tillerson

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2019

Department guidance also clearly states that residence is more than a temporary presence and that visits to the United States are insufficient to establish a residence for the purposes of citizenship … Circuit concluded that the Director’s written decision did not qualify. Id. at 77–80.

Forouzandeh v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2025

Circuit has not clearly answered this question. See Verizon v. FCC, 770 F.3d 961, 968 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (noting the tension between D.C. Cir. … Clearly, then, the INA and its implementing regulations contemplate further “administrative processing” after a refusal under Section 221(g).

North v. Smarsh, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2017

Supp. 3d at 80-83, and that FINRA was protected by absolute immunity; and therefore, it dismissed the allegations against both. See id. at 83-87. Plaintiffs did not appeal. … Smarsh I clearly rest upon the same alleged facts and are extremely similar, merely substituting spoliation for conspiracy. 15 North v.

Bethesda Health, Inc. v. Alex M Azar II

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2019

For comparison, the Board identified a demonstration project in Massachusetts which “established eligibility criteria” and “provided a clearly established benefit—premium subsidy to enroll in a managed care plan which provided … “The regulation describes the pool of qualifying hospital patient days.” Forrest General, 2019 WL 2417409, at *8.

Ramos v. United States Department of Justice

538 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2008

The Board also concluded squarely that the plaintiff “clearly ‘practiced’ before the DHS.” Id. at 0000774. … The Board’s decision to publish notice of the plaintiffs disbarment is equally immune to the plaintiffs challenges, particularly because it was based in part on his own consent.

Meriden Community Action Agency v. Shalala

880 F. Supp. 882 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 1995

The Court therefore concludes that the existence of the waiver rule and the consistent practice of permitting waivers upon request establishes a settled course of conduct by HHS. … The pre-amendment rules established a three stage appeals process.

Alfa International Seafood, Inc. v. Pritzker

321 F.R.D. 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 2017

The Applicants’ claimed injuries do not qualify as “concrete” within the meaning of Lujan. … However, the parties in those cases, unlike here, had clearly divergent interests.

Sagarwala v. Cissna

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 2019

how each of the qualifying fields of study that you have listed for the offered position is directly related to the duties and responsibilities of the position.” … Rather, the Court is satisfied that “the agency would clearly have acted” the same way with respect to § 214.2(h)(4)(iii)(A) even if the “single degree” ground was not available.