Case law

Mittleman v. United States

997 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 1998

Plaintiffs Motion To Strike Defendants’ Affirmative Defenses Plaintiffs first contention in all three cases is that defendants’ affirmative defenses, including the statute of limitations, estoppel, qualified immunity, res … collect information to the greatest extent practicable from plaintiff, in violation of § 552a(e)(2); (4) failed to maintain the records about plaintiff with reasonable accuracy, in violation of § 552a(e)(5); (5) failed to establish

12 Percent Logistics, Inc. v. Unified Carrier Registration Plan Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 2017

It does not clearly establish any website activity by District residents. … Stewart, 563 U.S. 247, 255 (2011) (stating that “when a federal court commands a state official to do nothing more than refrain from violating federal law, he is not the State for sovereign-immunity purposes”).

Estate of Christopher Brook Fishbeck v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2025

This qualifies Sgt. Bell to be “viewed as the functional equivalent[]” of Ezell’s spouse. See Bettis, 315 F.3d at 337; Valore, 700 F. … Porta’s non-citizenship because the terrorism exception abrogates sovereign immunity where the “claimant or the victim” of a qualifying attack is a U.S. citizen, and LCpl.

Friends of Animals v. Sally Jewell

115 F. Supp. 3d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2015

Put differently, “an organization’s abstract interest in a problem is insufficient to establish standing, no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem … But again, no case establishes such an amount- of-information litmus test.

Turner v. District of Columbia

383 F. Supp. 2d 157 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2005

Rather, “[t]he defendant must clearly set forth, through the introduction of admissible evidence, reasons for its actions which, if believed by the trier of fact, would support a finding that unlawful discrimination was not … Sankar denied her use of sick days “for which she was qualified[.]” *179 Am. Compl. ¶ 192.

Potomac Plaza Terraces, Inc. v. QSC Products, Inc.

868 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 28, 1994

This type of specification in the contract language clearly fulfills the requirement that the remedy is intended to be exclusive. See, e.g., District Concrete Co. v. … Here, the terms of the damages restriction clause, agreed upon by commercial parties of relatively equal bargaining strength, fail to establish unconscionability.

Gabriel v. Corrections Corp. of America

211 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2002

While plaintiff has clearly stated that he attempted to allege a cause of action under § 1983 in Count I, his second amended complaint and opposition to BOP’s motion to dismiss are ambiguous, at best, as to whether the plaintiff … To establish that a defendant’s failure to provide proper medical attention violates the Eighth Amendment, a plaintiff must establish that the defendant has exhibited “deliberate indifference to [the] serious needs of prisoners

Muldrow v. Emc Mortgage Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2011

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … PLEASE CONTACT THE PARTY LISTED BELOW IMMEDIATELY IF YOU ARE INTERESTED TO SEE IF YOU QUALIFY FOR THIS PROGRAM.

Center for Public Integrity v. Department of Energy

191 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2002

The Supreme Court has established a two-part test for determining whether information is exempt from disclosure under Exemption 3: 1) the asserted statute must qualify as an exemption statute; and 2) the information requested … This rationale clearly does not apply where an agency is withholding information.

Buie v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2019

Altieri’s knowledge and establish whether Mr. Altieri was truly incapable of testifying about those prior instances of misconduct.” Id. … The determination that these records were relevant was not clearly erroneous.

United States v. Mitchell

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2019

The government’s Memorandum in Aid of Sentencing asserts that the facts at trial established that law enforcement seized, inter alia, “approximately 14.5 grams of crack cocaine.” … Mitchell would not qualify as a career offender under current law, 8 but he would qualify as a career offender 8 The law of this Circuit is clear: attempted robbery and attempted drug distribution no longer qualify as

Bloomberg L.P. v. Federal Trade Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 2024

“A statute qualifies for the exemption if it ‘requires that . . . matters be withheld from the public in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue’ or if it ‘establishes particular criteria for withholding or … “Under the ‘public-domain doctrine, materials normally immunized from disclosure under FOIA lose their protective cloak once disclosed and preserved in a permanent public record.’” Brown v. Dep’t of State, 317 F.

National Independent Coal Operator's Ass'n v. Brennan

372 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 1974

. § 931 , each operator in that State must secure his liability for benefits under Section 422 by either “qualifying as a self-insurer in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary [of Labor],” or insuring with … In promulgating his regulations which establish criteria for identifying a “responsible operator” and which establish a presumption of liability with regard to such operator, defendant has followed the mandate of the statute

Kundrat v. District of Columbia

106 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2000

The contrary construction is untenable because it would render superfluous the qualifier "which Congress has authorized to be sued.” … If the evidence clearly showed that Ms. Kundrat could not recover against the District of Columbia, the court might properly deny leave to amend the complaint to add the District as a defendant. See Davidson v.

Mokkapati v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2022

Mar. 14, 2021) (“The agency’s process is clearly governed by a solid rule of reason—the visa availability approach—meeting the first factor”); see also Sychev v. … Defendants have thus established that their adjudication of I-526 petitions is guided by the requisite rule of reason.

Lewis v. McDonough

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 28, 2023

At the time, Lewis believed that Brinker “had simply selected the most qualified candidate.” PSMF ¶ 58. … This Circuit’s precedent clearly establishes, however, that ‘in Title VII cases [] the limitations period starts running when the plaintiff knows of the discriminatory act, not when the plaintiff perceives a discriminatory

Sangar v. Geren

539 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2008

See A.R. 8-9 (explaining that the 2002 Board of Inquiry “recommended a qualified retention and that [Dr. … Sangar is correct that some of the information before the 2005 Board was the same as that submitted to the 2002 Board, there were clearly documents and other testimony concerning Dr.

Frederick Banks v. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2011

compiled for law enforcement purposes,’ thus implicating Exemption 7(C), then we would have no need to consider Exemption 6 separately because all information that would fall within the scope of Exemption 6 would also be immune … Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 626 F.3d 678, 681 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The sentence structure of Exemption (b)(7)(E) indicates that the qualifying phrase (‘if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the

Armenian Assembly of America, Inc. v. Cafesjian

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2009

Here, disputed questions of fact preclude the Court from considering the applicability of this qualified privilege. … Statements made in the course of judicial proceedings are protected by absolute immunity from defamation suits.

Sts Energy Partners Lp v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

82 F. Supp. 3d 323 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2015

Although the evidence suggests that Exemptions 4 and 7(A) likely protect at least some of the information contained in these 16 records, it is not yet beyond dispute that all of the information is immune from disclosure … For example, a recommendation might not qualify for deliberative-process protection if it is later “adopted . . . as the agency position on an issue or is used by the agency in its dealings with the public.”