Case law

Banks v. Department of Justice

813 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2011

USPIS regulations require that a requester submit written authorization for the release of records pertaining to third parties, and defendant establishes that plaintiff failed to do so. C. … Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 626 F.3d 678, 681 (2d Cir.2010) (“The sentence structure of Exemption (b)(7)(E) indicates that the qualifying phrase (‘if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the law

United States v. Poindexter

719 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 1989

The defendant is entitled to be tried on an indictment that clearly recites the charges, not on a prosecutorial promise as to where it will go with its proof. … Under well established law, there is of course no obstacle to the naming of North in the conspiracy count. 9 .

Pendergrass v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2020

But qualifying losses under TSGLI generally contemplate only grave injuries. … Hopkins’s corresponding certification, were sufficient to establish that Plaintiff suffered a ‘qualifying loss.’”).

Wilson v. Fullwood

772 F. Supp. 2d 246 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2011

Achievements in accomplishing goals and efforts put forth in any involvements in established programs to overcome problems are carefully evaluated. … 1983, “[b]ut where Congress has not clearly created any duty, there is no § 1983 right for regulations to define.”); see also Smith v.

Montgomery v. Risen

197 F. Supp. 3d 219 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 2016

Thus, the magistrate judge’s conclusions were not clearly erroneous, and Montgomery’s objection is overruled. … While the First Amendment does not categorically immunize from liability all statements that are framed as opinion, see Milkovich v.

Lardner v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

875 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2012

Rule 59(b) establishes that “[a] motion for a new trial must be filed no later than 28 days after the entry of judgment.” Fed. R. Civ. … Indeed, plaintiff asks this Court to “determine whether” T-3, is in fact Dellacroce and would thereby qualify as an FBI informant. Id. at 10.

Freeman v. United States Department of Interior

83 F. Supp. 3d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2015

To qualify for a patent, an applicant must establish that their mining claim is valid. 4 An unpatented mining claim is valid against the United States only upon discovery of a valuable mineral deposit within the limits of … Bergman “is exceptionally well-qualified to address this subject and is much better qualified than any witness presented by [the plaintiff].” ALJ Decision at 22; AR 1936.

Blitz v. Donovan

538 F. Supp. 1119 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 1982

Although she was found eligible and qualified to pursue her training, she was told by a VEC representative that the “Blitz Amendment” presented problems as to her enrollment. … And our own Court of Appeals has recognized that a party may “bypass established avenues for review within the agency ... where the agency has very clearly violated an important constitutional or statutory right.”

Micula v. Government of Romania, The

District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 2015

Cir. 1978) (“[I]t is a well established principle that courts may look to subsequent legislation as an aid in the interpretation of prior legislation dealing with the same or similar subject matter.”). … The Foreign Arbitral Awards Convention enabling statute clearly demonstrates that when Congress wants to permit ex parte confirmation of a foreign arbitration award it knows how to do so.

Shourd v. Government of the Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2024

Finally, the extreme mental and emotional injuries that Shourd, Bauer, and Fattal suffered were clearly “caused by” Iran. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605A(a)(1). Plaintiffs are only required to establish proximate cause. … Defendant’s conduct here was clearly outrageous.

Hickey v. Scott

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2010

The judgmental immunity rule does not support summary judgment here. … See Estate of Nethken, 978 A.2d at 607 (plaintiff must establish "intent to deceive" by "clear and convincing evidence"). Hickey's speculation to the contrary is insufficient to establish fraud. See Bennett v.

Myers v. Alutiiq International Solutions, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2011

Plaintiff notes that Strickland’s salary exceeded that of more qualified Alutiiq employees. Id. … Court of Appeals does not clearly indicate which of the six original counts were brought against the individual defendant, 702 A.2d at 160.

Amos v. District of Columbia

589 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2008

Amos’s reports to the FBI does not operate retroactively to establish causation for the discharge. B. … While D.C. may be correct that “non-compliance alone[ ] does not establish a violation of the law or misconduct[,]” Defs.’ Mem. at 28-29, Mr.

McIver v. Shulkin

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2018

As the party claiming jurisdiction, plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court indeed has subject matter jurisdiction. Khadr, 529 F.3d at 1115. … Mills told me that I did not qualify for the position because I did not have a CDL or CPR certification [and] ended the interview[.]” Am. Compl. at 2.

Everglades Harvesting and Hauling, Inc. v. Scalia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2019

Although I agree that there is no coherent, clearly designated, "old" standard, I disagree that there is no reading of the law under which the plaintiffs could be granted TLCs. … Congress clearly intended to create two separate programs: H-2A for agricultural work and H-2B for other, nonagricultural work.

Edward W. Minte Co. v. Franey & Parr (In Re Edward W. Minte Co.)

286 B.R. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2002

This is clearly not the type of benefit that Congress intended to protect by enacting § 507(a)(4). [Footnote omitted.] D. … Section 507(a)(3) employee claims are clearly claims for compensation for employee services rendered even though the words “services rendered” are not expressly used in § 507(a)(3)(A).

Starr International Co. v. United States

139 F. Supp. 3d 214 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2015

Accordingly, the Court must consider sources other than the Convention’s text to determine whether the IRS has clearly and convincingly shown that judicial review is inappropriate here. … motive for establishing themselves in their country of residence.”

Risteen v. Youth for Understanding, Inc.

245 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2002

And clearly these assets are valuable (having been sold for $314,000) and thus arguably “substantial.” … Thus, YFU USA benefits from YFU’s goodwill established over 50 years.

Foothill Hospital-Morris L. Johnston Memorial v. Leavitt

558 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2008

A key question is when a delinquent account becomes “uncollectible” so that the provider qualifies for reimbursement. 3 The government has been struggling with this issue for decades, and its actions have often been inconsistent … With this last amendment, the Bad Debt Moratorium clearly prevents the Secretary from changing a provider’s established bad debt policy, but the parties disagree about whether it also prohibits changes to the Secretary’s

Flatow v. Islamic Republic of Iran

201 F.R.D. 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2001

The Department further argues that, even if the plaintiffs motion is properly before the Court, it must be dismissed because the United States has not “waived its sovereign immunity to suits of this type in the United State … Based on these statutory provisions, and the well-established canon not to interpret a statute so as cause absurd results, the Court finds that the plaintiff is not entitled to post-judgment interest for his punitive damages