Case law

Medina v. District of Columbia

718 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 18, 2010

any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities … The last page sets forth a table of statistics, and I think this leads clearly to speculation from the jury as to what these numbers mean, and on that basis it should not come into evidence because I think that you would

Bright v. Federal Communications Commission

828 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 2011

Cir. 1998) (weighing evidence where employer explained that another applicant was more qualified than the plaintiff); see also Boone v. Clinton, 675 F. … The only protected activity clearly identified is the 2007 EEO Complaint.

Northwest Austin Municipal Utility District Number One v. Mukasey

573 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2008

None of these statements, however, even hints that political subdivisions outside section 14(c)(2)’s definition would qualify for bailout. … Following these cases, two statutes abrogating state sovereign immunity pursuant to the Fourteenth Amendment survived constitutional challenges under the City of Boeme test. In Nevada Department of Human Resources v.

United States v. Al-Imam

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2019

The Court held t at Ayad was "another qualified person" based on D.C. … While nothing in the 6 Nor do the cases Al-Imam cites establish the proposition he advances. lt is true that in United States v. Estrella, 72 F.Jd 920 (D.C. Cir. 1995) (lb!.), the D.C.

Lepelletier v. Federal Deposit Insurance

977 F. Supp. 456 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 1997

The dispute in this case is whether the disclosure of the names of individual depositors would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” … that the disclosure will lead to the threatened invasion [of privacy]: one need only assume that business people will not overlook an opportunity to get cheaply from the Government what otherwise comes dearly, a list of qualified

Federal Trade Commission v. Anderson

442 F. Supp. 1118 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 1977

The court is of the opinion that the FTC has not abused its discretion in providing respon *1126 dents with qualified protection. 7 The joint respondents’ documents will be sufficiently protected by the statutory provisions … Here the complaint is comprehensive and the FTC has established the relevancy of the requests, while Texaco has not shown that the documents are not relevant to the allegations in the complaint.

Cuban v. Securities and Exchange Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2010

But just because numerous forms of records can qualify does not mean they do qualify in their entirety. … s Mem. at 28, nor has the defendant established that any resulting invasion of privacy is "clearly unwarranted" when balanced against the public interest as required by 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), Pl.'s Reply at 18.

Shannon v. Bhg Holdings, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2025

The Medicare and Medicaid Program In 1965, Congress established Medicare to provide nationalized health coverage for both older and disabled Americans. Id. ¶ 26. … Defendant essentially claims immunity from any similar suit because this fraudulent scheme seems to run “industry wide.” See id.

Corporation of the Presiding Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints v. Hodel

637 F. Supp. 1398 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 1986

Plaintiff also relies on 28 U.S.C. § 1361 , arguing that mandamus jurisdiction would be proper because the Secretary has a clearly established duty to administer American Samoa in accordance with the Constitution. … As such, it is not clearly erroneous or even an abuse of discretion.

Holland Ex Rel. United Mine Workers of America Combined Benefit Fund v. Apfel

23 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 1998

Footnote 2 from Wilks acknowledged that the general rule that a nonparty is not bound by a judgment reached among other parties is narrowly qualified. … Yet, if as a matter of law, no party could challenge an administrative interpretation that was compelled by a court of equity, the law would remain static and immune from circuit disagreements that are the sine qua non to

Scott v. Pacific Architects and Engineers (Pae), Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2020

Relators allege Kynoch was not qualified for this position, but do not specify which requirement he failed to satisfy. Id. ¶ 47. … Physical examinations and immunizations will not be provided by the government.” Def.’s Mem. Ex. 1 at 40.

Baptist Memorial Hospital v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2011

Per the Secretary’s approval, a demonstration project may provide benefits to individuals who do not otherwise qualify under the Medicaid statute. Id. § 1315(a)(1). … But as the record clearly indicates, and as Baptist-Memphis concedes, expansion waiver days were excluded prior to the Intermediary’s audit. See Pl.’s SJM at 13; Pl.’s Reply at 4–5; A.R. 121, 127–28.

Naacp Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. v. Barr

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 2020

For instance, “it would clearly violate the ‘fairly balanced’ requirement if the Secretary were to announce that he would exclude all points of view except one.” Id. … Because UMRA uses “established” as a past participle, those programs must already have been “established.” See id.

A. M. v. Bridges Public Charter School

District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2019

The McCalls establish a prima facie disparate treatment case but Bridges offers no nondiscriminatory justification To establish disparate treatment under the ADA, Rehabilitation Act, and DCHRA, the l\/IcCalls must show A.M … The McCalls apparently do not realize they can easily clear this hurdle After all, A.M.’s medical records clearly establish (and Bridges does not contest) that A.M’s conditions meet the statutory definition of a disability

Smith v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

663 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2009

He has therefore not established his entitlement to the confidential source material properly withheld under Exemption 7(D). 2. … All information that “applies to a particular individual” would qualify for consideration under this exemption. U.S. Dep’t of State v.

Integrity Social Work Services, Lcsw, LLC v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2020

for a hearing before an administrative law judge 1 The four levels of review are: “(1) a redetermination by a MAC [Medicare Administrative Contractor]; (2) reconsideration of the MAC’s redetermination by a qualified … Subject matter jurisdiction also does not exist in this case because Plaintiff failed to exhaust its administrative remedies and obtain a final decision of the Secretary in accordance with the limited waiver of sovereign immunity

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

949 F. Supp. 2d 225 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2013

These are clearly the type of documents protected by the work product doctrine. See Senate of Puerto Rico v. Dep't of Justice, 823 F.2d 574, 586 (D.C. … upon specific events and a specific possible violation by a specific party, it has litigation sufficiently 'in mind' for that document to qualify

Auburn Regional Medical Center v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2010

Here, plaintiffs' claims clearly arise under the Medicare Act – and hence are covered by § 405(h) – because they arise from the calculation of payments under the Medicare DSH provision and have as their ultimate goal the … Plaintiffs contend that they fall within this exception because, without judicial review of their DSH payments under § 1331, the Secretary's actions would be immunized from judicial scrutiny.

United States v. Al-Imam

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2019

Charter to the ‘prosecute or extradite’ regime they establish[.]”). … itself is established.”

United States of America v. Second Chance Body Armor Inc

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2018

Rice, which he was not able to clearly recall. After Mr. … Davis might be using the term “expert” colloquially, and did not understand the implications of the legal term of art under the Federal Rules and as established by the United States Supreme Court.