Case law

Morley v. United States Central Intelligence Agency

453 F. Supp. 2d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2006

Exemption (b)(1) thus “establishes a specific exemption for defense and foreign policy secrets, and delegates to the President the power to establish the scope of that exemption by executive order.” … As such, to qualify under Exemption (b)(2), information need not actually constitute “rules and practices,” but need only be “related” to rules and practices. Id.

Abale Gnalega v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2020

In re Swine Flu Immunization Prods. Liab. Litig., 880 F.2d 1439, 1443 (D.C. Cir. 1989) (citing Sexton v. United States, 832 F.2d 629, 637 (D.C. Cir. 1987)). … Plaintiff tries to call into doubt the last of these factors, asserting that the medical records are “clearly suspect.” Gnalega Decl. ¶ 17.

United Presbyterian Church in U.S.A. v. Reagan

557 F. Supp. 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 20, 1982

The Order establishes the framework in which our governmental and military agencies are to effectuate the process of gathering foreign intelligence and counterintelligence information, and the manner in which intelligence-gathering … Any private citizen citing injury in fact could qualify for standing to challenge the Order if, indeed, some act taken pursuant to it served to deprive the plaintiff of constitutionally or statutorily guaranteed rights.

City of Dover, New Hampshire v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

36 F. Supp. 3d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2014

Accordingly, any expansion would not qualify as a new source. … But plaintiffs have received finally effective NDPES permits.16 Consequently, any expansion would not qualify as a new discharger.

Doe v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

718 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 1989

The substantive aspects of these provisions are clearly satisfied in the instant case. … As a result of the evaluation process, [Doe] emerged as the best qualified candidate. Id. 19 .

Brown v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2019

The complaint clearly raises federal questions over which 7 this Court has original jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. § 1331. … Plaintiff has offered nothing to present to a jury establishing when (and how often) the alleged scheduling issue arose.

United States v. Allen

920 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2013

Allen’s plea agreement is clearly distinguishable. Unlike the agreement examined in Freeman, the Mr. Allen’s agreement made no mention of the defendant’s criminal history category. Mr. … Allen’s sentence was based on the Guidelines, he still fails to qualify for a reduced sentence under 18 U.S.C. § 3582(0)(2) because the U.S.S.C. has not lowered the sentencing range for his offense.

Malcolm v. Reno

129 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2000

The chronology of events clearly establishes the futility of further administrative proceedings. … Thus, the defendant’s position in the present litigation clearly establishes that, absent a court order, it has no intention of complying with the May 3, 1999 decision of the Office.

Rubio v. District of Columbia Department of Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2024

See Dkt. 39 at 6–10; Dkt. 73 at 11–12 (arguing that qualified immunity would bar Plaintiff’s claims against District officials). … But, again, these cases cannot establish a “widespread practice or custom” of the unconstitutional conduct Plaintiff alleges. Hurd, 997 F.3d at 338.

Core VCT PLC v. Hensley

89 F. Supp. 3d 104 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

Nevertheless, since defendant had “clearly established a new domicile in France in 1989 and then Monaco in 1998,” the “continuing'domicile rule” dictated that “the only way that [defendant] could be a domiciliary of Illinois … As the Magistrate Judge explained, defendant lives “a transient lifestyle, and clearly has for several decades.” (Id. at 25.)

National Association of Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board

846 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2012

Sections 153 to 156 establish the National Labor Relations Board. … The notice, which is clearly stamped with a government seal, does not call for the employer to take a position or express a view on the law. See Prune-Yard Shopping Ctr. v.

Alnaddaf v. Rubio

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2026

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).

Chien v. Freer

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 23, 2021

The Court shall refer to it as “Chien II” for ease of reference. 1 case due to judicial immunity). … Plaintiff bears the burden of “establishing a factual basis for the [Court’s] exercise of personal jurisdiction.” Williams v. Romarm, S.A., 756 F.3d 777, 785 (D.C. Cir. 2014).

Stanley Co. of America, Inc. v. McLaughlin

195 F. Supp. 519 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 1961

A permanent Commission of Fine Arts was created by Act of Congress, May 17, 1910, to be composed of seven well-qualified judges of the fine arts, whose duty was to advise “generally upon questions of art when required to … W., was established in conformance with the statute.

Baer v. Montachusett Reg'l Technical Sch. Dist.

380 F. Supp. 3d 143 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2019

Because Counts II and IV are clearly retaliatory claims, the Court will assume that Counts I and III are hostile work environment claims. 1. … Pursuant to the MTCA, a public employer retains immunity for "any claim arising out of an intentional tort, including ... libel, slander." Mass. Gen. Laws ch. 258, § 10 (c).

Advancement Project v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2021

See Access Reps., 926 F.2d at 1195 (“A document from a junior to a senior is likely to reflect his or her own subjective opinions and will clearly have no binding effect on the recipient.”); see also, e.g. … A record must therefore meet three requirements to qualify for the exemption. First, it must have been “compiled for law enforcement purposes.” Id.

Gillet v. King

931 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 1996

Plaintiff has failed to establish that he has either a liberty interest or a property interest in employment as an ALJ. … See Roth, *15 408 U.S. at 576-77 , 92 S.Ct. at 2709-10 (“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it....

National Ass'n of Home Builders v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

699 F. Supp. 2d 209 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2010

As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing. … Thus, although the plurality opinion in Rapanos clearly believed that the CWA does not give the Corps unfettered regulation authority, it stopped just short of declaring that a point source, such as a ditch, can never be

Fraenkel v. Islamic Republic of Iran

258 F. Supp. 3d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 2017

The Fraenkels and their remaining six children sued the Syrian Arab Republic, Islamic Republic of Iran, and Iranian Ministry of Information and Security (MOIS), as supporters of Hamas, under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities … “Motions for a new trial ‘must clearly establish either a manifest error of law or fact or must present newly discovered evidence.’” Nyman v. FDIC, 967 F. Supp. 1562, 1569 (D.D.C. 1997) (quoting FDIC v.

Brookens v. Chao

District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 2009

Plaintiff has made no effort to dispute these assertions, even though they involve matters clearly within his knowledge. … Defendant, however, has established that plaintiff was unqualified while several others applicants did meet the requirements of the position.