Case law

James Madison Ltd. ex rel. Hecht v. Ludwig

868 F. Supp. 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 1994

Clearly, the Court would have been particularly unwilling to subject bank regulators to judicial second-guessing during this time period. … . § 191 is highly discretionary, it is not immune from judicial review.

Van Horn v. McCarthy

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2023

And, “[t]o establish . . . constructive discharge, [a] plaintiff must establish that the employer deliberately made working conditions intolerable and drove [him or] her into an involuntary resignation [or retirement]. … Regarding the third component, “[a] plaintiff can establish [a] causal connection . . .

United States v. Jones

292 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 1968

When immunity was requested for Bromley it was not granted. But it is a fact that Bromley cooperated and that he was never indicted. … It reads as follows: The uncorroborated testimony of a single witness is not sufficient to establish the falsity of the statement of the defendant under oath.

United States v. Poindexter

732 F. Supp. 142 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 5, 1990

which the Court previously struck from the subpoena duces tecum; two questions (Nos. 78-79) dealing with recommendations made by individuals other than the President whose identity and the substance of whose evidence are clearly … Clearly, the indictment, as the government proposes to amend it, would state a complete criminal offense. 1 Indeed, defendant does not argue otherwise.

Sacchetti v. Gallaudet University

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2018

The Court concludes that this evidence is clearly sufficient to establish that a reasonable juror could conclude that Manganelli experienced mental suffering due to the alleged false arrest. … Mem. at 25, does not establish that no accommodations were necessary to satisfy the ADA.

Ditlow v. Volpe

362 F. Supp. 1321 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1973

There are exceptions to this general practice, but as to each item withheld in such an exception there must be a showing that the materials withheld independently qualify for exemption from the disclosure requirements of … This was clearly the concern of the Committee Reports on the Act: “ [D] isclosure of such files could harm the Government’s ease in Court.” S.Rep.No.813, 89th. Cong. 1st.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n, International v. Eastern Air Lines, Inc.

683 F. Supp. 845 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 7, 1988

Such a rule would “emasculate the federal courts established authority to maintain the status quo.” … These decisions clearly minimize the importance of any showing of irreparable injury.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Cheney

580 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2008

Defendants’ second argument is that the Court has violated the “well-established practice of staying discovery before the anticipated filing of, and during the pen-dency of, a dispositive motion.” Defs.’ Mot. at 6. … If they are not, the public interest is clearly served by resolving this case prior to January 20, 2009, to ensure to the greatest extent possible the “preservation of an accurate and complete historical record.”

Truelove v. Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia

744 F. Supp. 307 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 1990

In determining when the “alleged unlawful employment practice” occurred that would trigger the limitations period, the Supreme Court has clearly stated that “the pendency of a grievance or some other method of collateral … By doing so, plaintiff “establish[es] facts adequate to permit an inference of retaliatory motive,” and therefore establishes a prima facie ease. Id. at 790 .

Newman v. Howard University School of Law

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2024

But Howard’s responses were not clearly unreasonable under the circumstances. Accord Cavalier v. Cath. Univ. of Am., 513 F. … Since the statements here were made in the context of such a private disciplinary proceeding, they get the qualified privilege.

Huthnance v. District of Columbia

268 F.R.D. 120 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 2010

Pre-decisional documents must also be deliberative to qualify for the privilege. Id. … Thus, “to properly assert the privilege, defendant must ‘establish a formal, considered, detailed claim of privilege.’” Doe v.

International Business MacHines, Corp. v. Medlantic Healthcare Group

708 F. Supp. 417 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 1989

Instead of a 25% discount, the 3090-18E CPU would qualify only for a 15% discount. 12 IBM explained the erroneous April 2 quote as the product of internal crossed wires. … The April 21 letter clearly falls into the latter category.

Wye Oak Technology, Inc. v. Republic of Iraq

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2019

The law at issue in the cases cited by Iraq and MoD is clearly not applicable to this suit. … Second, defendants allege Wye Oak was not qualified to perform.

In Re Roemer

421 B.R. 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 28, 2009

In relevant part, the deed of trust provided that: BORROWER shall occupy, establish, and use the Property as Borrower’s principal residence within 60 days after the execution of this Security Instrument and shall continue … The only issue before this court is whether the debtor’s condominium qualifies as her principal residence for purposes of § 1322(b)(2).

Cause of Action v. Internal Revenue Service

125 F. Supp. 3d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2015

Defendant has not established that all of its withholdings under Exemption 3 and section 6103 were justified. … See 267 F.3d at 1138 (declining to determine “whether propositions that were neither factual nor legal qualified as ‘data’”).

Lyles v. District of Columbia Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2011

Plaintiff argues that she was qualified for this position because her previous experience included the evaluation and assessment of DMH personnel from 1994 to 2000, which matched the duties of the new position. (Id.) … Plaintiff argues that she was qualified for this position because her previous experience included evaluation of community-based sites and provision of clinical services to the mentally ill, both duties required by the

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

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 2009

As discussed at length above, the class of proceedings identified by DOJ is too broad and hypothetical to qualify as 7 This “predictive judgment,” Ctr. for Nat’l Sec. … Clearly, the Court’s decision reflects a concern for the chilling effects that such disclosure would have on future agency deliberations.” 984 F. Supp. at 68 (quoting Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. at 151).

Bangoura v. United States Department of Army

607 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2009

Plaintiff, in his reply, asserted that he was entitled to declaratory relief based on Defendant’s “well-established pattern of delayed and ineffectual responses to Plaintiffs FOIA requests.” … Plaintiff did not dispute Defendant’s showing that the redacted information qualifies as a “personnel, medical or similar file” as contemplated by Exemption 6.

Spine v. Biedermann Motech Gmbh

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2010

Ferree testified that the screw in Plaintiff’s Exhibit 13 clearly angulated more to the right than to the left. Id. at 115:1-5. Dr. … Antonsson testified that he qualifies as a person of ordinary skill in the art under his definition. Id. at 67:9-11. Dr.

Brunetti v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

357 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2004

It is the FBI’s burden to establish that any exemption from disclosure applies. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(B). … The FBI argues that these letter clearly qualify as attorney work product because “[t]hey were prepared by DOJ attorneys, reflect those attorney’s thoughts, impressions, and understanding of factors to be considered in making