Case law

Arias v. DynCorp

856 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2012

The defendants have not established that justice requires reconsideration. II. … In the discovery context, when qualified privilege is properly raised, the litigant’s need is a key factor.

Parker v. United States Department of Justice, Office of Professional Responsability

214 F. Supp. 3d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 12, 2016

First, Exemption 6 encompasses only “clearly unwarranted” invasions of privacy, while Exemption 7(C) omits the adverb “clearly.” Id. … He further maintains that “the public has a very significant interest in knowing whether” AUSAs “are qualified and licensed to practice law” because if they are not, the interests of the United States, its agencies, and

Schoenman v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

Accordingly, where, as here, the agency’s regulations contradict established precedent in this Circuit, the Court is bound to apply the D.C. … Accordingly, the FOIA places the burden on the agency to establish its right to withhold information under one of the enumerated FOIA Exemptions. Id.

Williams v. District of Columbia

825 F. Supp. 2d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2011

Absent a “clearly expressed intent to the contrary,” courts will “presume that the amendment does not apply retroactively.” Tippett, 10 A.3d at 1131 . … These principles are well-established and non-controversial.

Hamilton v. Geithner

616 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 2009

As to the latter opinion, the court further noted that an employer could “select a candidate who on paper [was] less qualified for other reasons, such as the subjective reactions that emerge in the interview.” … And the plaintiff does not allege any facts that clearly establish his failure to pursue such remedies.

Hansen v. Billington

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2009

Yet, a nonmoving party must establish more than a “ mere . . . scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … It did not allege retaliation for prior EEO activity, presumably because there had been no prior activity; the charge quite clearly claims race and age discrimination.

North v. United States Department of Justice

658 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

Under this public domain doctrine, “materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.” Cottone v. … Rule 6(e) qualifies as a statute for *177 purposes of FOIA Exemption 3 because it was affirmatively enacted by Congress. See Fund for Constitutional Gov’t v.

Hobson v. Hansen

265 F. Supp. 902 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 1967

And indicators clearly show that § 101 poses a real threat to this court’s integrity. … Because District of Columbia officials do not qualify as “Officers of the United States,” Article II cannot justify § 101.

Center for Auto Safety v. Department of Justice

576 F. Supp. 739 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 1983

In [a] 1959 Report, the House Antitrust Subcommittee concluded, “The consent decree practice has established an orbit in the twilight zone between established rules of administrative law and judicial procedures.” … exempted under clearly delineated statutory language ____’ ” County of Madison, supra, 641 F.2d at 1040 , quoting, S.Rep.

Committee of Blind Vendors v. District of Columbia

736 F. Supp. 292 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 1990

The evidence clearly established that in functional terms, DAC Corporation was a nominee within the meaning of these regulations. … Defendants’ decision not to refund the surplus was clearly a unilateral one.

Borders v. Reagan

518 F. Supp. 250 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 1981

The purpose of the new Judicial Nomination Commission is to recommend qualified persons to the President of the United States to fill vacancies on either of the District of Columbia local courts. … Second, it clearly should not apply to the somewhat unusual context of this case.

Rattigan v. Gonzales

503 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 2009

for hostile work environment, but it directed that any amended complaint would have to specify the discrete acts of discrimination and retaliation so that the issue of exhaustion could be resolved and also would have to clearly … However, “opposition to an unlawful employment practice” qualifies as protected activity even if it may have occurred outside of the EEO context.” See Broderick, 437 F.3d at 1232 .' 8 .

Donald J. Trump for President, Inc. v. Wp Company LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2023

Those two statements appear in the same paragraph, and read together, the second statement is plainly intended to qualify the first statement. … The Sargent Article’s inclusion of the qualifying statement is the kind of action that dispels actual malice.

Burke v. Air Serv Int'l, Inc.

775 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2011

Most critically, Burke clearly understood the risks involved in the flight to Taluqan. He knew that the helicopter was unarmored and would carry no guards. Burke Dep. at 151-52. … Here, Burke misunderstands the District’s standard: an expert may establish the relevant standard of care by "clearly relating] the standard of care to the practices in fact generally followed by other comparable [entities

Mitchell v. Del Toro

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2024

The Federal Circuit construed § 624 consistently with the constitutional appointment process: “The current statutory language itself does not clearly compel the President to appoint military officers.” … Even if a singular case could establish a standard by adjudication, it almost certainly would not exclude Mitchell’s conduct here. Mitchell’s cited cases, Pl.’s Cross Mot. Summ.

Cox v. Berryhill

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 19, 2022

Statutory and Regulatory Framework To qualify for disability benefits under the Social Security Act,2 a claimant must establish that she is “disabled.” 42 U.S.C. § 423(a)(1)(E). … While Cox clearly met two of the three criteria to qualify as disabled under Listing 12.05C, the ALJ could still find that “evidence in the record rebuts the presumption that the onset of Plaintiff’s intellectual disorder

In Re: In the Matter of the Fort Totten Metrorail Cases Arising Out of the Events of June 22, 2009

793 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 2011

Because the lawsuits here were filed in 2009, see Compl. ¶ 25, they clearly fall within the intended scope of the amendment. … None of these statements, either individually or collectively, qualify as anything more than a description of the product’s condition at the time of delivery.

Brown v. Trinity Washington University

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2023

Trinity does not contest that Brown was a qualified person with a disability. … She argues that this implied contract clearly includes “providing instruction and grading work handed in.” Id. at 27.

Wade v. District of Columbia

780 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2011

See Burlington, 548 U.S. at 68 , 126 S.Ct. 2405 (“An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that … Furthermore, “[c]ourts cannot examine whether any isolated action, on its own, qualifies as ‘adverse.’

Rio Grande International Study Center v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 2, 2020

The Supreme Court has noted repeatedly in the qualified immunity context that officers against whom there is no viable claim should be dismissed at the “earliest possible stage in litigation,” Hunter v. … Though the doctrine of qualified immunity does not apply here, the principles undergirding it are instructive.