Case law

Force v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2022

In the view of the Special Master, Soudry is qualified as an expert for the purpose of determining economic loss. Id. The Court agrees. … The Special Master indicates that “the record does not establish that Mr.

Jackson v. District of Columbia

89 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2000

Defendants argue that plaintiffs have failed to establish their standing to bring this suit. … If the inmate’s grievance is determined not to qualify for Level III review, it shall be returned to the inmate stating this.

P & B SERVICES, INC. v. Cardenas

525 F. Supp. 1289 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 1981

The regulations go on to establish specific size limits for various types of business concerns 21 and to further attempt to distinguish an independently owned and operated small business from one affiliated with a large concern … Additionally, the Board found that P&B was not “qualified to perform more than food service contracts” 31 and “also not qualified to act as prime contractor for the portion of the contract that Pan Am will admittedly do.”

GasPlus, L.L.C. v. United States Department of the Interior

510 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 6, 2007

Circuit [has] recognized that a party can meet the prudential standing test by qualifying either as a regulated interest or a protected interest.”). … And GasPlus’s interests were clearly regulated by the BIA’s decision to void the Management Agreement.

Hickey v. Scott

738 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2010

The judgmental immunity rule does not support summary judgment here. … See Estate of Nethken, 978 A.2d at 607 (plaintiff must establish “intent to deceive” by “clear and convincing evidence”). Hickey’s speculation to the contrary is insufficient to establish fraud. See Bennett v.

Apogee Coal Co. v. International Union, United Mine Workers of America

12 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 1998

In the event they again failed the tests, he ordered Lone Mountain to hire each applicant for a trial period of 60 days to see whether they were qualified for a position. See id. at 13-14. … It is designed as a way to determine the applicants’ ability to perform the job in lieu of test results alone; as such, it is clearly within the scope of the MOU.

Wilson v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2025

FOIA Exemption 6 enables the government to withhold “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). … The records were therefore compiled by the FBI in furtherance of its federal law enforcement mission and qualify as law enforcement records for the purposes of Exemption 7(C). See Tracy v. U.S.

Dch Regional Medical Center v. Burwell

257 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2017

And one need look no further than DCH’s own request for relief to see clearly that what is at stake in this action is DCH’s requested individualized recalculation of the uncompensated care figure rather than any reformulation … A challenge to agency action on the ground that it is ultra vires requires a plaintiff to establish “a patent violation of agency authority[,]” Florida Health II, 830 F.3d at 522 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted

Marijuna Policy Project v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

191 F. Supp. 2d 196 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2002

That a Congressional enactment is consistent with existing federal law in no way immunizes the enactment from constitutional challenge. 1. … violated Establishment Clause).

NATIONAL ASS'N OF WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS v. Solis

665 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2009

ANALYSIS NAWE and Intervenors brought their claims under the APA, which waives the sovereign immunity of the United States and permits a court to set aside agency action that is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion … The right is qualified, however, and it may be overcome by an overriding interest in closure that is narrowly tailored to serve such overriding interest. Press-Enter. Co. v.

Whitman-Walker Clinic, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 2, 2020

Each of these qualifies as an injury to the health-provider Plaintiffs’ interests. … That relief would clearly redress at least some of their injury.

Human Resources Management, Inc. v. Weaver

442 F. Supp. 241 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 1978

He told the subcommittee, in July 1977, that one of his actions would be “an evaluation of each firm in the 8(a) portfolio to determine (1) whether the firm’s owners qualify under the established eligibility criteria . . … The Court can also assume that the general goal of the SBA Administrator is to increase the participation of qualified minority group members in the 8(a) program.

Janczewski v. Secretary, Smithsonian Institution

767 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 1991

This was established in this Circuit by Bell v. Brown, 557 F.2d 849 (D.C.Cir.1977). See Josiah-Faeduwor v. … Further, the delay was clearly not caused by the plaintiff sleeping on her rights.

Leach v. Mnuchin

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2023

Many of them — including Leach’s removal of duties, suspension, transfer, and non-selection — clearly do. Id. Others are much closer. … Under that framework, the plaintiff bears the initial burden of establishing a prima facie case of discrimination or retaliation.

Perkins v. United States Department of Veterans Affairs

754 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2010

However, plaintiff does not explain how his background in information technology qualifies him to perform statistical analysis, which is an entirely different subject matter. … However, his case is clearly distinguishable from other cases in which FOIA requesters successfully demonstrated their ability to disseminate information through news outlets and organizations.

3q Digital, Inc. v. Nielsen

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2020

. 3Q Digital responded to this request, but USCIS still found that 3G Digital had not established that the position in question warranted an H-1B visa. … Of course, common sense dictates that there must be some limits on what type of degree can qualify.

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. Jamison

815 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 8, 1992

However, as the TRAC court wrote, “[wjhether or not these delays would justify mandamus, we believe they clearly warrant retaining jurisdiction.” TRAC, 750 F.2d at 81. … the qualified surface owner____ 82 While it is possible, as plaintiffs contend, that a surface owner who would otherwise be qualified might remain unknown to the Bureau, the occurrence of such an accident is highly speculative

Martin County, Florida v. Department of Transportation

201 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2016

They have clearly made a substantial investment in the overall project, including in Phase II. … See id. at 27:15-16 (counsel for Indian River County conceding “that frankly[,] the plaintiffs need to establish control and financial assistance.” (emphasis added)).

Center for National Security Studies v. United States Department of Justice

215 F. Supp. 2d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2002

In order to accomplish that goal, the Act mandates “full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.” … Third, the other document disclosed to Plaintiffs clearly indicates the existence of earlier relevant documents, none of which were disclosed.

White v. Mattis

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2019

Cl. 628, 665–70 (2014) (detailing the legislative history of the Dignified Treatment of Wounded Warriors Act of 2008, which established the Board). … On remand, the Board should review the administrative record and explain its decision in a way that clearly connects the facts found to the decision made.