Case law

Stokes v. Children's Hospital, Inc.

805 F. Supp. 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 1992

Rule 50(b), however, clearly states that “if no verdict was returned, the court may, in disposing of the renewed motion, direct the entry of judgment as a matter of law or may order a new trial.” Fed. … Rao was not qualified to testify to the standard of care applying to Dr. Brallier because Dr. Rao was a neurologist, not a radiologist. This fact does not, however, bar Dr.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Abraham

223 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2002

Plaintiffs’ claim of procedural injury is clearly sufficient to establish standing. … Defendants suggest that a “pattern and practice” claim is not cognizable because the federal government has not waived sovereign immunity for such claims.

Cason v. National Football League Players Association

District Court, District of Columbia · May 7, 2021

But Plaintiffs could go through the evaluation process and still qualify for benefits, as they acknowledge. See id. … in a benefit plan “cannot be taken literally to mean that, once a participant begins to receive IRD benefits, he will necessarily remain entitled to them for the remainder of his life” because, for example, benefits “clearly

American Federation of Government Employees v. United States

104 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2000

The Supreme Court has clearly stated, “Classifying persons according to their race is more likely to reflect racial prejudice than legitimate public concerns; the race, not the person, dictates the category.” … The 1991 amendment itself does- not appear to establish any preference for ANCs or Native Americans.

McMullen v. Synchrony Bank

82 F. Supp. 3d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2015

Once a party establishes that CAFA's basic jurisdictional requirements are satisfied, the burden shifts to the party seeking remand to 3 establish that a CAFA exception … For the exception to apply, then, McMullen bears the burden of establishing that the other two elements are also satisfied: that there is at least one local defendant who qualifies under the CAFA local controversy exception

White v. Fosco

599 F. Supp. 710 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 1984

The suit sought recovery of back-pay for all qualified postal workers under the Federal Employees' Salary Comparability Act of 1965, 39 U.S.C. §§ 3571-73 . … The class consisted of all qualified postal workers, not just LIUNA members. Opp. at 2.

Humane Soc. of US v. Johanns

520 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2007

establishments.”). … Plaintiffs in Public Citizen filed suit before the President lifted the moratorium on qualified Mexican motor carriers in November 2002. Id.

Anderson v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2026

Circuit’s analysis in Sissel is focused on the context of the statute establishing the Physical Disability Board of Review (PDBR). … But, as discussed above, the Court disagrees that any records “clearly demonstrate[]” that the PEB committed errors.

Faison v. Vance-Cooks

896 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 2012

To establish a prima facie case of discrimination for failure to accommodate, a plaintiff must show that she is a “qualified individual with a disability” and that her employer failed to grant her the “reasonable accommodations … Here, notice of an unfulfilled request for voice-activated computer equipment was clearly provided to the GPO.

Citizens Against Legalized Gambling v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

501 F. Supp. 786 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 1980

Before discussing the merits of plaintiffs’ claims, it is important to outline the petition procedure for an initiative as it is established by D.C.Code § 1-1116 (Supp. VII 1980). … It is significant to note that in the case now before the Court, the Board of Elections found-with 99 percent certainty-that the petitioners had gathered enough signatures to qualify the initiative for the ballot.

Gannett Satellite Information Network, LLC v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2025

Here, both parties agree that the data sought qualifies as “similar files” sufficient to trigger application of Exemption 6. … Since both parties agree that this privacy provision qualifies for Exemption 3, id. at *5 (“The parties do not dispute that the Crime Control Act's Title I confidentiality provision is an exemption that qualifies for withholding

Ali Shafi v. Palestinian Authority

686 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2010

An international norm must be sufficiently definite and accepted “among civilized nations” to qualify for the ATS jurisdictional grant. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 732 , 124 S.Ct. 2739 . … Palestine Liberation Org., 306 F.Supp.2d 424, 429-30 (S.D.N.Y.2004) (refusing to dismiss claims against the PA and PLO on sovereign immunity grounds because they did not establish that Palestine is a state under § 201 of

Bales v. United States Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2020

To apply this rule and determine whether the very existence of records fits in a FOIA exemption, “courts apply the general exemption review standards established in non-Glomar cases.” Id. (quoting Wolf v. … a determination of whether the document in question qualifies as ‘a personnel, medical, or similar file.’” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of the Navy, 25 F.

Kingman Park Civic Ass'n v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

84 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 1999

Similarly, a state cannot immunize itself from the CWA’s important TMDL provisions through the simple expedient of refusing to submit TMDL calculations to EPA. … United States Dep’t of Justice, 753 F.2d 1092, 1102 (D.C.Cir.1985), 5 the Plaintiffs have clearly established jurisdiction under the citizen-suit provision of the CWA EPA concedes that where a state has submitted a TMDL,

Fund for Animals v. Norton

374 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2005

Plaintiffs argue that because the MBTA and the Conventions clearly protect mute swans, *99 as found by the U.S. Court of Appeals in Hill v. … The Foreign Sovereign Immunity Act ("FSIA”) generally bars suits against foreign countries in the U.S. courts, except in limited circumstances. Id. at 235.

Bennett v. District of Columbia Public Schools

6 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 5, 2013

A plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of discrimination in the context of termination of employment by demonstrating that “that he belongs in the statutorily protected age group, he was qualified for the position, … However, said statement was clearly in reference to Plaintiff’s weighted score, which was determined after Jarrett assigned Plaintiff unweighted scores.

Government of Guam v. United States Department of Navy

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2018

Cir. 2014) (suggesting that whether a defendant is liable must be established before determining the scope of that liability). … Again, the parties clearly contemplated Guam’s compliance with the 2004 Consent Decree as settling and satisfying only the CWA claims that the EPA had brought against Guam.

Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 8, 2019

“Such jurisdictions will be immune from systemic challenges.” Id. … [and that such finding] may have been implicit as opposed to explicit, but she clearly found that the [District] had failed to establish probable cause.”).

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2019

Exemption 6 shields from disclosure “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). … When an agency invokes both Exemptions 6 and 7(C), courts “focus” on Exemption 7(C) because it “establishes a lower bar for withholding material.” Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v.

Lewis v. Bayh

577 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2008

The lone posW1990 amendment to either § 1983 or § 1985 is a 1996 amendment to § 1983 adding language regarding the immunity of judicial officers from injunctive relief. Pub.L. 104-317 § 309 (c). … “Such simplified notice pleading is made possible by the liberal opportunity for discovery and the other pre-trial procedures established by the Rules to disclose more precisely the basis of both claim and defense to define