Case law

Hunt v. U.S. Marine Corps

935 F. Supp. 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 1996

Instead, the agency merely has to establish that the information was part of the deliberative process. See Access Reports v. … The Court also finds that the remaining three documents qualify as “similar files.”. In United States Department of State v.

Petit v. United States Department of Education

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2010

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … As an initial matter, the court observes that the 1983 regulatory definition of audiology fails to expound as to what qualifies as “fitting” an appropriate aid. See generally 34 C.F.R. § 300.13(a).

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.

Smith v. Grondolsky

299 F. Supp. 3d 287 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2018

However, this is clearly incorrect. … This was in accordance with the procedure established by the Fourth Circuit in United States v.

Zivotofsky v. Secretary of State

511 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2007

In re Swine Flu Immunization Prods. Liab. Litig., 880 F.2d 1439, 1442-43 (D.C.Cir.1989); Jones v. Exec. Office of the President, 167 F.Supp.2d 10, 13 (D.D.C. 2001). … This contrasting language clearly indicates that Congress understood the difference between “urging” the President to take certain action and “mandating” it.

Winston v. Smithsonian Science Information Exchange, Inc.

437 F. Supp. 456 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 1977

Winston again stated that Offutt was not qualified to be his supervisor and that if she were, she should know his functions. (Tr. 648^49; DX 2, p. 5). … Plaintiff clearly offered no showing of statistical disparities sufficient to establish a prima facie case and/or prove its case of discrimination against the individual plaintiff or fact indicative of any racial discrimination

United States v. Deft. 1

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2022

Williams’ role in a conspiracy to buy and sell homes to purchasers whom he fraudulently qualified for loans with the Federal Housing Administration (“FHA”), buyers who in fact did not have sufficient income to qualify for … In Newman, the court of appeals clearly stated that “it makes no sense to suggest that although defense attorneys had no duty to advise their clients about the immigration consequences of pleading guilty prior to Padilla

Moreno v. United States Department of Agriculture

345 F. Supp. 310 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 1972

OPINION McGOWAN, Circuit Judge: Since the establishment of the food stamp program in 1964, eligibility for participation has been determined on a “household” basis. … In order to qualify as “legitimate” under the equal protection clause, a legislative purpose must arguably be related to the improvement of the general welfare. See Developments in the Law, supra at 1081.

Basel Action Network v. Maritime Administration

370 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2005

Plaintiffs’ complaint clearly asserted a violation of TSCA. Compl. ¶ 1 (“This action is brought under the Toxic Substances Control Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2601 et seq. … None of these considerations applies to Teesside, U.K., where NEPA clearly does not apply.

Independent Petroleum Ass'n of America v. Babbitt

971 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 1997

These would clearly fall under the shadow of IPAA. The government prays for pause before the court would grant such relief. … Second, the government challenges the power of this court to establish law for courts in other circuits.

United States v. Lee

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2024

For conduct to qualify as protected speech, there must be both “[a]n intent to convey a particularized message,” and a “great” likelihood “that the message would be understood by those who viewed it.” Spence v. … The Court stressed that “the officers in the tunnel were clearly in defensive mode,” as “[t]hey literally had their backs to the wall and [were] being attacked by a large and violent crowd of rioters.” Tr.

Ramer v. United States Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2009

Supp. 2d 37 (D.D.C. 2006), clearly require the conclusion that this Court has subject matter jurisdiction in this case. Pls.’ Resp. at 1-2. … Indeed, the plaintiffs contend “that defendant should be estopped from ‘converting’ the damages claim (clearly intended) into a refund claim (clearly unintended).” Id.

Cobell v. Kempthorne

532 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 2008

NORC qualified its report on the LTROs in the following manner: “Given the importance of LRIS for the historical accounting, it is clearly desirable to use the knowledge gained so far to design a larger statistical sample … The second is the waiver of sovereign immunity.

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

Plain v. AT & T, Corp.

424 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2006

Moreover, though the court does not agree with MetLife’s contention that a non-employer is entirely immune from liability under Section 510, 9 in order for a *19 insurer to be liable under Section 510, a plaintiff must demonstrate … Co., 12 F.3d 410, 422 (4th Cir.1993); Blake, 952 F.Supp. at 934-35 , to establish that an insurer interfered with a protected right. The record simply does not support such an inference.

A. G. Schoonmaker Co. v. Resor

319 F. Supp. 933 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 1970

The New Army Invitation originally established the date for the opening of bids as June 8, 1970, but this was later changed to June 15, 1970. 32. … This action is not barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. Shaffer, supra. 4.

Maydak v. U.S. Department of Justice

254 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2003

However, when the request here is stripped of plaintiffs motives, it fails to qualify as a reasonable FOIA request. … “Section 130 is clearly an exemption 3 statute where it clearly and specifically identifies the ‘particular types of matters to be withheld.’ ” Colonial Trading Corp. v.

Edwards v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC

791 F. Supp. 2d 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2011

Plaintiffs have not established that clear intent here. … To constitute a property interest for purposes of the Clause, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire ...

Beaumont v. Orr

601 F. Supp. 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 1985

The Act clearly intends to provide a mechanism to retain officers who otherwise are free to leave the service. The officers ... … We do not believe Congress intended this group to qualify for continuation pay.

Reston v. Federal Communications Commission

492 F. Supp. 697 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 1980

Act is one of full disclosure absent some clearly delineated exemption in the Act, the agency here must bear the burden of showing that the recordings are exempt. … This statement is in complete harmony with the language of the act, which precludes not the hearing, but the unauthorized divulgence or publication of radio transmissions, while in no way qualifying regulation 19’s applicability