Case law

Young Chung v. District of Columbia

982 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 1997

Moreover, section 47-2834(b) explicitly qualifies the scope of the license by reserving to the Mayor the authority to “change[ ] the locations where vendors may stand as often as the public interest requires.” … This provision clearly indicates that the District anticipated that it might have to prohibit vending in certain areas due to public safety and traffic concerns.

Hoey v. District of Columbia

540 F. Supp. 2d 218 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

Thus, the challenged statements relate directly to his dispute with MPD and Lanier and qualify as a personnel issue; they are therefore subject to the remedial provisions of the CMPA. … That is the very holding of Fonville : "This regulation ... clearly conflicts with the enabling statute.” 448 F.Supp.2d at 27 . The District’s reliance, in supplemental briefing, upon Sims v.

United States v. Chilcoat

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2024

Defendant cites to several cases where a President or Vice President was deemed to be “temporarily visiting” at rallies or out-of-town functions . . . but the fact that those situations clearly qualify does … The Court will continue to follow “this circuit’s well[-]established procedure” of refusing defendants’ “pre-voir dire requests for . . . a change of venue.” United States v.

Athridge v. Aetna Casualty & Surety Co.

163 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2001

Clearly, they cannot. I have again reviewed the acts complained of and again find no basis upon which a reasonable finder of fact could conclude that Aetna’s acts meet this stringent, demanding standard. B. … Therefore, he is not and has not been subject to diplomatic privileges or immunity. Def. Reply, Exhibit F.

Steppe v. Governor, United States Soldiers' & Airmen's Home

710 F. Supp. 356 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 1989

As time passed, their property interest in their jobs became more established and less vulnerable to an arbitrary and capricious action by the government. … They clearly have the right to rely on such representations made by their Union representative.

Pederson v. Preston

250 F.R.D. 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2008

Plaintiff asserts that Selec-tee, a Hispanic female twelve years his junior, was a “less qualified but younger person” whose selection “was consistent with statements of [SBA’s] intentions to hire young examiners.” … Plaintiffs messages clearly sought to initiate a discussion rather than demand an immediate formal reply. (See Email from Pederson to Interrante (Feb. 21, 2008), Ex. C to Pl.’s Mot. to Compel at 1.)

United States v. Foster

566 F. Supp. 1403 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 1983

In sum, we conclude that the actions of Officer McKenzie-amounted to, at the very least, an investigative detention which qualified as a Fourth Amendment seizure of Foster’s person. … At that point, Foster clearly had reason to believe that he and the car would be searched, and the shotgun discovered.

Jones v. Hodel

685 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 1988

Plaintiff clearly has prevailed on the merits, within the meaning of the statute. The fact that the government ultimately denied his grievance is of no import. *8 C. … of qualified attorneys for the proceedings involved, justifies a higher fee.” 4 .

Young v. Covington & Burling, LLP

846 F. Supp. 2d 141 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2012

The plaintiff acknowledges that she was clearly advised later by Mr. Davies that her promotion from the staff attorney position was not a possibility. Specifically, the plaintiff explains that while meeting with Mr. … has the ultimate burden of establishing that the reason asserted by the employer is pretext for retaliation."

United States v. Poindexter

698 F. Supp. 316 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 1988

Section 6 establishes proceedings for the determination by the court of the admissibility of classified information noticed by the defendant. … A few facts already established in the existing pretrial record make this conclusion immediately apparent.

Gartrell v. Ashcroft

191 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2002

Such a policy clearly contemplates that BOP should assess whether an inmate’s sincerely held religious beliefs would be burdened by a particular placement. … BOP routinely determines whether an inmate qualifies for placement in an alternative prison setting in other contexts 63.

Chandler v. United States Parole Commission

60 F. Supp. 3d 205 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2014

SORA further specifies which crimes qualify as registration offenses. D.C. … As the Court already has noted, the record does not clearly indicate the nature of CSOSA’s “determination” of Chandler’s status as a “potential sex offender.” See supra at 19 n.10.

Daniels v. Potomac Electric Power Co.

789 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2011

See Def s Opp. at 8-11 (“[Plaintiff] also complains that ... he has been deemed qualified for long term disability and has not returned to work.... … However, these cases are clearly distinguishable.

District of Columbia International Public Charter School v. Lemus

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2023

The Hearing Officer clearly considered both objective and subjective data. … Other evidence in the record clearly showed that Odin's academic skills were not progressing at DCI.

Reyes v. Sessions

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2018

To establish standing, a plaintiff must allege three elements: (1) an “injury in fact,” which is “concrete and particularized” and “actual or imminent”; (2) that the injury is fairly traceable to the challenged provision … Here, the history and stated purpose of the Exchange Act clearly indicate that the statute was primarily intended to prevent economic harm to investors.

United States v. District of Columbia

703 F. Supp. 982 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 1988

D.C.Code § 24-425 clearly provides the Court with law to apply and establishes a specific, meaningful standard with which the Court may evaluate the Attorney General’s designation decisions. … The language of the statute clearly establishes criteria to which the Attorney General must adhere in designating places of confinement for D.C. prisoners.

Republic Property Trust v. Republic Properties Corp.

540 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2008

An inference of scienter qualifies as “strong” if it is “cogent and at least as compelling as any inference of nonfraudulent intent.” Tellabs, 127 S.Ct. at 2505 . … The agreement does not clearly define what would constitute default, but it would not be unreasonable under these circumstances to infer that RPC might be “in default.”

Philip Morris USA Inc. v. United States Food and Drug Administration

202 F. Supp. 3d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2016

The statutory scheme established by the TCA is quite comprehensive. … Congress clearly delegated to the FDA the authority to regulate label changes in other sections of the Act.

Wright v. Metropolitan Life Insurance

618 F. Supp. 2d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2009

Specifically, the Plan details a process by which a participant seeking long-term disability benefits must submit evidence of a qualified disability to MetLife in order to establish entitlement to monthly benefits. … or for which [the participant] may become reasonably qualified taking into account [the participant’s] training, education or experience[.]

Catalyst & Chemical Services, Inc. v. Global Ground Support

350 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 2004

Second, the prosecution history can help determine the meaning of claim terms by *13 eliminating interpretations that were “clearly and unambiguously” relinquished during the proceedings before the U.S. … However, before this interpretation is applied, the court must examine the intrinsic evidence to determine if it “clearly demonstrates” that only one of the definitions was intended.