Case law

National Whistleblower Center v. Department of Health and Human Services

849 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2012

First, Exemption 6 encompasses “clearly unwarranted” invasions of privacy, while Exemption 7(C) omits the adverb “clearly.” See id. … This case, however, is clearly distinguishable from the facts before the Cuban court.

Electronic Frontier Foundation v. Department of Justice

892 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2012

These proper procedures include: (1) the document was marked as required and stamped with the proper classification designation, E.O. 13526, §§ 1.6(a)(1)-(5); (2) the document was marked to indicate clearly which portions … Here, the Department has sufficiently established that no portion of the OLC Opinion is reasonably segregable and releasable.

Cook v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2025

In such a case, President Trump, required to remove Cook “for cause,” would have clearly exceeded his statutory authority in failing to do so. … The President’s Allegations Fail to State a Qualifying Cause Under the Statute.

Stellar It Solutions, Inc. v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2018

The agency based its denial on two independent grounds, but neither is immune from this problem. … To be sure, the Court is not saying that the record clearly establishes the existence of a specialty occupation here.

Silver State Land, LLC v. Beaudreau

59 F. Supp. 3d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 2014

Yet, the fact that the defendants had notice of the fraud claims simply does not establish knowledge of the Nevada Order. … decisions” by “establishing that Henderson’s fraud claims were baseless.”

Elemary v. Philipp Holzmann A.G.

533 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2008

[but] District of Columbia law does not establish where economic injury occurs.” Helmer, 393 F.3d at 208 . … But because her complaint does not clearly elucidate the acts comprising the fraud, let alone hint at where such acts took place, she has not established tortious conduct in the District.

United States v. Dorman

294 F. Supp. 1221 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 1967

App.D.C. 64, 190 F.2d 649 (1951), “such a waiver or consent must be proved by clear and positive testimony, and it must be established that there was no duress or coercion, actual or implied.” … The cases upholding searches based on valid consent are clearly distinguishable: Fredricksen v. United States, 105 U.S. App.D.C. 262, 266 F.2d 463 (1959); Woodard v. United States, 102 U.S.App.

Longwood Village Restaurant, Ltd. v. Ashcroft

157 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2001

Zeng wanted to use the August 24, 1990 priority date to establish his place in line for an immigrant visa number. See id. … The burden of establishing mootness rests on the party raising the issue, and it is a heavy burden. See Davis, 440 U.S. at 631 , 99 S.Ct. 1379 ; United States v. W.T.

Kirwa v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2018

But these arguments are clearly refuted by the allegations in plaintiffs’ complaint. (See, e.g., Am. … As the government conceded at oral argument, Brown had a right to apply for citizenship, established by federal law.”)

Sun Ship, Inc. v. Hidalgo

484 F. Supp. 1356 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 1980

DOD Directive 4105.62 essentially provides for the procedure established in DAR 4-107 outlined above. … Six responsible and qualified offerors were in the competition for the T-ARC 7 contract. As already indicated, the Navy found all six proposals to- be in the competitive range. 11 . See Ex. K-29.

Lans v. Adduci, Mastriani & Schaumberg, LLP.

District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

Circuitous statements of this nature do not qualify as the kind of “plain statement of the claim” envisioned by Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2). If Dr. … Lans did not qualify as newly discovered evidence within the meaning of Rule 60(b)(2)), which Dr. Lans, through AMS, appealed.

Kinsley v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2021

Plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing these elements. See Lujan, 504 U.S. at 561. To establish that an individual member has standing, “it is not enough to aver that unidentified members have been injured. . . . … The remaining Plaintiffs seeking nonimmigrant visas have thus established standing.

Calvert v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 2010

A “genuine issue” is one whose resolution could establish an element of a claim or defense and, therefore, affect the outcome of the action. Celotex, 477 U.S. at 322; Anderson, 477 U.S. at 248. … [a] plaintiff [] qualifies as having ‘substantially prevailed’ regardless of whether he obtained a judicial order . . . or ‘obtained relief through . . . a voluntary or unilateral change in position by the agency, if [his

In Re G-Fees Antitrust Litigation

584 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2008

Here, the complaint establishes that plaintiffs are not direct purchasers. … Defendants’ intent to harm the victims is clearly alleged in the complaint and also weighs decidedly in favor of determining that plaintiffs have alleged an antitrust injury.

Goldstein v. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

172 F. Supp. 3d 221 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2016

Plaintiff does not contest Defendant’s assertion that the responsive records qualify as “similar files” under Exemption 6. See Pl.’s Mot. 7-14; see U.S. Dep’t of State v. … Plaintiff’s FOIA request was clearly focused on information concerning the IRS Employees.

Ball v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

87 F. Supp. 3d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

They manage “money, credit, or capital,” and therefore under a plain meaning interpretation they qualify as financial institutions. … The Board is clearly an agency that is “responsible for the regulation and supervision of financial institutions more generally.”

Hardin v. Jackson

648 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2009

See Quinclorac Establishment of Temporary Tolerances, 56 Fed.Reg. *45 28153 (June 19, 1991); Receipt of Application for Emergency Exemption to use Quinelorae Solicitation of Public Comment, 57 Fed.Reg. 8660 (Mar. 11, 1992 … Circuit “has long held that section 2401(a) creates ‘a jurisdictional condition attached to the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity.’ ” P & V Enters. v. U.S.

Ross University School of Medicine v. Cavazos

716 F. Supp. 638 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 1989

Robert Ross, Chairman of the Board, stated that “this application is for new programs to be established in the medical school for which GSL eligibility has already been established.” Id. at 5 . … The regulation clearly specifies that its authority is based on 20 U.S.C. § 1094 .

Jones v. U.S. Department of Justice

111 F. Supp. 3d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2015

Jones’ service in the Navy did not qualify him as preference-eligible to appeal his discharge to MSPB. Id. at 4. … Further, MSPB’s Initial Decision clearly directed that Mr.

Action Alliance of Senior Citizens v. Leavitt

456 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 4, 2006

Low-income beneficiaries who qualify may have their premiums subsidized in full, or in part, by the federal government. … As Congress has clearly contemplated that a beneficiary’s fault and hardship should outweigh the government’s ability to recover erroneous benefit payments, there is no reason to infer (as the Secretary urges) that Congress