Case law

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

Jouanny v. Embassy of France in the United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2017

As the longest tenured employee at the Embassy, Plaintiff claims she was more qualified than Ngandjeu for that position. Id. ¶ 39. … Establishing such a claim is a formidable task. As the D.C.

In Re Veiga

746 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 20, 2010

Evidence tending to show that facts and conclusions submitted to the court in the Lago Agrio Litigation were fabricated or otherwise manipulated is clearly relevant to that litigation; it would be probative of the veracity … Claims of Privilege Even if discovery is permissible under § 1782(a), Applicants may not seek information that is immune from discovery.

Juergens v. URBAN TITLE SERVICES, INC.

533 F. Supp. 2d 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2008

. ¶ 62, Ex. 2 (LLC Arts of Org.). 3 According to Plaintiff, she never indicated to Defendant Duncan that she wanted to establish the LLC, and Defendant Duncan did not inform her that he was going to or had established the … B (6/20/07 Juergens Aff. ¶ 7), is clearly contradicted by the recitation in the Deed at issue.

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.

Rosenberg v. United States Department of Immigration and Customs Enforcement

959 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2013

Therefore, the Court has “no need to consider Exemption 6 separately because all information that would fall within the scope of Exemption 6 would also be immune from disclosure under Exemption 7(C).” Roth v. U.S. … For the first time in his reply brief, the Plaintiff argues that “Chief Judge Reade does not 17 qualify as the type of individual whose privacy FOI may protect because . .

Indian Law Resource Center v. Department of Interior

477 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 1979

At the same time, the law firm statements also qualify as privileged. … Tribal Council resolutions and attorney fee schedules are not prepared in anticipation of litigation; the privilege afforded to attorney work product is clearly inapplicable here. See generally Hickman v. Taylor, supra.

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.

Maldonado v. LOGLOGIC, INC.

632 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2009

In the classic McDonnell Douglas test, the first burden is on the plaintiff to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge. McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … Generally, a prima facie ease of discriminatory discharge requires a showing that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she was qualified for the position; (3) she was discharged; and (4) she was replaced by a person

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. .

Zernik v. Melson

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2009

A court may issue a writ of mandamus only if "the duty to be performed is ministerial and the obligation to act peremptory and clearly defined. … Supp. 2d 225, 233 (D.D.C. 2006) (internal citation omitted); 31 U.S.C. § 3730(b), pro se plaintiffs are not qualified to represent the interests of the United States in such an action, United States ex reI.

Hyatt v. United States Patent and Trademark Office

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2018

T ax Analysts established two factors to determine whether a document requested under FOIA is an “agency record.” 492 U.S. 136, 144-45 (1989). First, the agency must either “create or obtain” the document. … Khuu’s alleged privacy interest, this Court does not find there to be a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” here.

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.”

Brown v. Tomlinson

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2009

To establish a prima facie case of retaliation under Title VII, a plaintiff must, among other things, present evidence that “the adverse action was causally related to the exercise of [his] rights.” Holcomb v. … Circuit concluded that although the employer had clearly failed to follow established hiring procedures, the circumstances of that case made it unreasonable to infer therefrom that the employer acted with discriminatory

Gilbert v. United States Air Force

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2025

Gilbert does not dispute that the Act might apply in appropriate circumstances as a qualifying statute under FOIA exemption 3; instead, she argues, it cannot apply here because she claims to already know the identity of … In particular, Gilbert fails to establish that the Air Force has ever made public, “through an official and documented disclosure,” the identity of the complainant—let alone that it was Costey.

P.K. v. Tillerson

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2017

In IRAP, the Fourth Circuit held that section 2(c) “likely violates the Establishment Clause.” IRAP, 857 F.3d at 605. … Mar. 26, 2008) (holding that the doctrine of consular non-reviewability did not apply where the “case ha[d] not procedurally progressed to the point where consular immunity would bar judicial review”).

Tenaris S.A. v. Bolivarian Republic of Venezuela

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2020

The Court’s entry of judgment demarcates the period of post-award interest from the period of post-judgment interest. 3 It is long established that, as a matter of common … For that reason, numerous courts have held that where, as here, “an award specifies an interest rate ‘until payment,’ that language does not clearly portray the intent of the parties to replace the federal interest rate

Kirwa v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 2017

“One day of qualifying service is sufficient in establishing eligibility.” USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 12, Part I, Ch. 3, § A. … served honorably because the service did not qualify as active-duty service.

United States v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2022

The petitioner bringing a motion under section 2255 must establish, by a preponderance of the evidence, the denial of a constitutional right. See United States v. Simpson, 475 F.2d 934, 935 (D.C. … Thus, to qualify as a crime of violence for purposes of § 924(c), a predicate offense such as CCE must involve a purposeful or knowing mens rea, as the CCE Murder statute clearly does.

Yanofsky v. Department of Commerce

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2018

§ 2452(b), and the establishment of the Fulbright scholarship board, id. § 2456. … Circuit explained that the phrase “‘thing of value’ clearly does not describe ‘particular types of records[,]’” but that court did not even deign to address the possibility that the statute’s reference to “a service .