Case law

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).

United States v. Vaglica

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2024

Defendant Vaglica has not filed a response to these motions, and the deadline for responses established in the Pretrial Scheduling Order has passed. See ECF No. 28. … did not “state or clearly imply” in his public remarks on January 6, 2021 that entering the Capitol without authorization was “lawful.”

Renewable Fuels Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2021

And the agency clearly cannot use different information to satisfy different prongs of the Exemption 4 test. In the Court’s view, however, EPA does not make that obvious mistake. … Absent a Supreme Court holding squarely abrogating Circuit precedent — which Food Marketing clearly is not — this Court has no power to depart from the result mandated by that precedent. See United States v.

Seafarers International Union v. United States Coast Guard

871 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 23, 1994

The evaluation fee for a merchant mariner’s document was set at $60 when accompanied by a “qualified rating”; otherwise, there was to be no charge. … Furthermore, in this instance, Congress clearly intended to authorize fees of the type enacted by the Coast Guard’s regulation. See H.R.Conf.Rep.

Sataki v. Broadcasting Board of Governors

733 F. Supp. 2d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2010

Well-established precedent further counsels that this Court should be reluctant to interfere with the personnel decisions of the federal government. … Quite clearly, there has been no intervening change of controlling law or discovery of new evidence nor is there a need to correct a clear error or prevent manifest injustice.

American Bar Association v. United States Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2019

At that point, it decided to establish an annual employment- certification form, which led it to develop the ECF Process. 73 Fed. Reg. at 63,241–42; AR 45– 46. … The evidence concerning Voigt’s claim makes the point the most clearly.

United States v. Shorter

618 F. Supp. 255 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 1985

Resnik, the most credible and qualified defense expert, essentially confirmed the testimony of Drs. Moravec and Ciarroc *260 chi. … That contention is clearly mistaken.

Brooks v. Holder

20 F. Supp. 3d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2013

A plaintiff pursuing a Title VII claim must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence that he “was qualified for a job for which the employer was seeking applicants.” Teneyck v. … Thus, it is sufficient for a plaintiff seeking to make out a Title VII prima facie case to “establish that he was substantively qualified and that [the employer] selected a white person.” Id.; see also Lathram v.

Tracy v. U.S. Department of Justice

191 F. Supp. 3d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2016

Accordingly, the FBI has established that the records that it released to Tracy (in a redacted form) were protected in full by the Privacy Act. 2. … , ‘Exemption 7(C) is more protective of privacy than Exemption 6’ and thus establishes a lower bar for withholding material.”

Alaska Airlines v. Austin

801 F. Supp. 760 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 1992

Al *764 though the APA is not itself a basis for subject matter jurisdiction, it does provide a waiver of sovereign immunity for this claim. … However in the absence of a clearly established and applicable government rate or an explicit contract between the government and the airlines — options which allow easy monitoring for compliance — the government may not

Evans v. Atwood

177 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 18, 1997

Davis, 636 F.2d 1028 , 1040 (5th Cir.1981) (to qualify as work product “primary motivating purpose behind the creation of the document was to aid in possible future litigation.”); First Pacific Networks, Inc. v. … The material sought to be expunged, however, was clearly not prepared for use in the litigation but for other purposes, i.e., to discuss what certain documents (not to be used in this lawsuit) should or should not contain

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.

Societe Internationale Pour Participations Industrielles Et Commerciales, S. A. v. McGranery

111 F. Supp. 435 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 1953

But the decision of that case was clearly on different grounds. … Arkansas, supra, clearly establishes the want of foundation in this contention.

Campbell v. Schmidt

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2020

As discussed above, the Proposal clearly uses background information about Campbell’s associates to put her admissions in context, not to accuse her of guilt by association. … As Campbell points out, the government is immune from damages for any violations of the APA. See Lane v. Pena, 518 U.S. 187, 196 (1996).

Johnson v. Metropolitan Direct Property & Casualty Insurance Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2019

Britton, 523 U.S. 574, 597–98 (1998) (regarding qualified immunity); see also Verizon Washington, D.C., Inc. v. United States, 254 F. … Conspiracy claims do not incorporate any alternate burden-shifting framework; to obtain relief, a plaintiff must always establish each element of the tort.

Peterson v. AT & T Mobility Services, LLC

134 F. Supp. 3d 112 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2015

Circuit "has not established whether the standard ... under 28 U.S.C. § 1927 should be ‘recklessness’ or the more stringent ‘bad faith.’ " LaPrade v. … Under appropriate circumstances, Cingular Wireless may transfer the employee to a non-driving job if one is available for which the employee is qualified.”), ECF No. 22-1 (emphasis in the original).

Federal Trade Commission v. Bisaro

757 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2010

Magistrate Judge Kay also concluded that Respondent’s status as the CEO and President of Watson does not immunize him from being deposed. … If this were a civil action, the FTC would clearly have authority to depose Respondent in order to determine whether or not he knows anything about this issue.

Zaid v. Executive Office of the President

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2025

That is well established, but does not answer the question in this case. … The government does not appear to dispute that the first two requirements are satisfied, and they clearly are.

Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Heckler

602 F. Supp. 764 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 1985

These guidelines clearly applied specifically to the intermediate unit, as required by the regulation. … Medicare encourages providers to establish "funded depreciation” accounts to be used for capital expenditures. 42 C.F.R. § 405.415 (e).

Lyles v. District of Columbia

777 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2011

Plaintiff argues that she was qualified for this position because her previous experience included the evaluation and assessment of DMH personnel from 1994 to 2000, which matched the duties of the new position. (Id.) … Plaintiff argues that she was qualified for this position because her previous experience included evaluation of community-based sites and provision of clinical services to the mentally ill, both duties required by the new