Case law

Wildearth Guardians v. Salazar

District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2011

Indeed, had the BLM hypothetically sought to lease the West Antelope II tracts pursuant to the competitive regional leasing process without first recertifying the area as a coal production region, its decision would clearly … Should it elect to do so, the regulations would clearly serve a renewed purpose at that time, and not be, as Plaintiffs suggest, “superfluous.”

Robinson v. District of Columbia

403 F. Supp. 2d 39 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2005

In this case, Plaintiffs claims against Defendant Gainer in his official capacity are clearly duplicative of her claims against the District itself. … insufficient to establish the existence of a policy amounting to “deliberate indifference.”

Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2025

authority or unconstitutionally’ are not barred by sovereign immunity.” … In the former context, the sovereign itself never suffers a loss of immunity because in circumstances where the Larson-Dugan exception is applied due to employees’ ultra vires conduct “there is no sovereign immunity to

Brill & Harrington Investments v. Vernon Savings & Loan Ass'n

787 F. Supp. 250 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 1992

Uecker is qualified for the office, having served as a receiver for several other properties in California and, in particular, in the Silicon Valley area where the subject Property is located. … And, were it ever in doubt, it is now definitively established that, absent clear direction to the contrary by Congress, federal courts have the power to award any appropriate relief in a cognizable cause of action brought

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Senate

340 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 6, 2004

Judicial Watch nonetheless seizes upon dictum from this opinion to support a right clearly rejected by the court. Pl.’s Opp’n at 13. … In Los Angeles County Bar Association , the Ninth Circuit clearly rejected the right now claimed by Plaintiff.

Cobell v. Norton

226 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2002

As an initial matter, the Court observed that “the controlling Supreme Court case law on point clearly provides [that] the establishment of this trust creates certain substantive rights in favor of its beneficiaries, the … The findings of fact presented above clearly establish that the Department of Interior did not take any substantive measures (except publishing a sham notice in the Federal Register) during the eighteen month period following

Evans v. Davis Memorial Goodwill Industries

133 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2000

(Evans Dep.Ex. 19) The record clearly shows grammatical and wording errors in plain *30 tiffs writing, as well as management frustration with those errors. … However, plaintiff distinguishes Duncan by noting that the plaintiff in that case was alleging future impairment in job seeking'employment, not an established record of such impairment.

Holassie v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2019

Therefore, the District has clearly and “fairly put the plaintiff on notice of what reasoning he must challenge.” See id. at 1091 (citing Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422, 428 (D.C. … In addition, DPR’s termination of, and failure to hire Holassie qualifies as a prohibited personnel action. See D.C.

United States v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 2012

Benbow also suggests that there was reasonable doubt that the alleged motive for the killing qualified the crime as violence in aid of racketeering. Def.’s Mem. at 9. … This part of the conversation clearly links the call to narcotics trafficking.

United States v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 21, 2012

Benbow also suggests that there was reasonable doubt that the alleged motive for the killing qualified the crime as violence in aid of racketeering. Def.’s Mem. at 9. … This part of the conversation clearly links the call to narcotics trafficking.

United States v. Raymond

337 F. Supp. 641 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 1972

Tosi one of the five or six most expert examiners in the country, 17 has been with the Michigan State Police Department for over fifteen years, has inspected over 50,000 voice spectrograms, and has been qualified as an expert … “We conclude that the available results are inadequate to establish the reliability of voice identification by spectrograms. .

Amissah v. Gallaudet University

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 2, 2022

Amissah “was not as qualified for the [CDO] position as [Dr. Ndura].” Def.’s Mot. at 15. Dr. Amissah argues that Gallaudet’s proffered explanation is pretext because he was “significantly better” qualified than Dr. … Amissah was not significantly more qualified for the CDO position than Dr. Ndura.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice

955 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2013

It may very well be that many of the redacted documents qualify for the protections of Exemption 5 for reasons of deliberative process. Indeed, the D.C. … First, Exemption 6 encompasses “clearly unwarranted” invasions of privacy, while Exemption 7(C) omits the adverb “clearly.” See id.

Coleman v. Kendall

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2023

to the criteria established in 10 U.S.C. § 12646 which establishes criteria for satisfactory service.” … See, e.g., Compl. ¶ 225 (“The AO also highlighted that Plaintiffs had not been decorated since 1999”—which Coleman does not dispute—“despite the clearly glowing assessments in his OPRs.”).

Sterling Commercial Credit-Michigan, LLC v. Phoenix Industries I, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2011

Moreover, plaintiff clearly states that it “gave Defendants notice prior to filing the subject Motion.” … First, economic harm may qualify as irreparable where a plaintiff establishes that the harm “is so severe as to cause extreme hardship to the business or threaten its very existence.”

O.M.G. v. Wolf

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2020

Many Petitioners are minors who qualify. As a practical matter, then, Petitioners’ request for release pertains principally to the adults among them. … • At Dilley and Karnes, ICE screens arrivals to determine whether they qualify as high-risk under Fraihat, 2020 WL 1932570.

Grant v. Entertainment Cruises

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2017

[W]e assume that when a statute uses such a term, Congress intended it to have its established meaning.” McDermott Intern., Inc. v. Wilander, 498 U.S. 337, 342 (1991) (citations omitted). … Defendants here do not contend that a ship providing a 4   harbor cruise is somehow unprotected, and, in fact, “a watercraft need not be in motion to qualify as a vessel

Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian

597 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2009

Here, disputed questions of fact preclude the Court from considering the applicability of this qualified privilege. … Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are protected by absolute immunity from defamation suits.

Parker v. U.S. Department of Justice Executive Office for U.S. Attorneys

852 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2012

Information need not be intimate or embarrassing to qualify for Exemption 6 protection. See Horowitz v. Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 279 (D.C. Cir. 2005). … Accordingly, the Court will remand the case to the agency to engage in the statutory exercise established under FOIA. D.

United States Ex Rel. Thompson v. Hays

432 F. Supp. 253 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 1976

Ashbaugh has been assigned responsibility for the civil consequences and liabilities arising from the Hays-Ray relationship and related matters and is, therefore, qualified to comment upon the Justice Department’s activities … Those counts must, therefore, be dismissed along with the action under the False Claims Act for failure of relator Martin-Trigona to establish standing as a federal taxpayer.