Case law

Hamilton v. Geithner

743 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2010

Additionally, Defendant also asked ... whether Plaintiff believed he qualified for the detail that Burrell got. … Additionally, the record is devoid of any additional documentation establishing that the plaintiff filed a separate EEO formal complaint based on the Burrell detail. 5 .

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.”

Angela Price v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2014

But perhaps that is because other attorneys realize that court appointment pursuant to a statute that clearly sets a rate of compensation is the beginning and end of the inquiry. ln both cases at issue, Mr. … The Superior Court derives its authority to establish such a panel 5 and appoint panel attorneys in special education cases from the CJA and administrative orders implementing the CJA’s directive. See D.C.

Buckley v. Valeo

387 F. Supp. 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 1975

The procedure established by § 315(a) is clearly inconsistent with that found in 28 U.S.C. §§ 2282 and 2284. Under § 2284 the three-judge district court hears and determines the questions presented on the merits. … The Commission has not yet been established. 3 .

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

Cummings v. City of Newton & Setti D. Warren in His Individual & Official Capacities

298 F. Supp. 3d 279 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2018

On the other hand, Cummings alleges that at the press conference prior to the hearing, Warren "had already clearly stated his intent to terminate plaintiff." … As explained above, plaintiff has not established that Warren interfered with his constitutional due process rights.

Ballard v. Branch Banking and Trust Company

284 F.R.D. 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2012

Although there was no sign on the ATM’s exterior, Ballard was notified, by a clearly visible message on the display screen, that he would be charged a fee and the amount of the fee for the withdrawal. … Therefore, BBT argues, some members of the proposed class do not qualify as “consumers,” and consequently their claims will be different.

Sloan Ex Rel. Juergens v. Urban Title Services, Inc.

689 F. Supp. 2d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 2010

against him, but that she has failed to provide an expert qualified to opine on these issues. 11 Duncan’s [224] Reply at 4-8. … Second, the Court declines to consider at this time Duncan’s alternative argument, raised for the first time in reply, that Plaintiffs claims fail because she cannot proffer qualified expert testimony establishing Duncan’

Orlikow v. United States

682 F. Supp. 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 19, 1988

Every decision involves some measure of discretion, but stretched to an extreme, section 2680 could swallow any waiver of sovereign immunity intended by the Act. Morici Corporation v. … Cameron’s research was clearly beyond the medical standard of care can only be answered once the disputed facts are resolved.

Trustees of the Electrical Workers Local No. 26 Pension Trust Fund v. Trust Fund Advisors, Inc.

266 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 2010

Edward Godfrey Dale explains that, in 1997, the Board of Trustees of the Local 26 Pension Plan decided to retain an Investment Consultant “to assist the Board in establishing an asset allocation model, advise the … In Hearn, the court held that state officials who asserted qualified immunity as an affirmative defense to a prisoner’s claim of a violation of his civil rights had placed at issue the advice they received from the Attorney

Newdow v. Bush

391 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2005

Hence, the issue of standing to bring this type of Establishment Clause claim against President Bush and others was clearly resolved in Newdow I by a court of competent jurisdiction. See Cutler v. … The President’s immunity from such judicial relief is “a functionally mandated incident of the President’s unique office, rooted in the constitutional tradition of the separation of powers and supported by our history.” 505

Performance Coal Company v. US Department of Labor

847 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2012

To qualify for this 1 With respect to the Wagner request, all of the withheld documents were withheld as work product pursuant to FOIA Exemption 5, and therefore "segregability is not required." Judicial Watch, Inc. v. … Here, defendants asserted Exemption 7(C) to withhold information clearly compiled for "law enforcement purposes." See 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(7).

Al-Baluchi v. Gates

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2023

Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. at 520 (plurality opinion) (“It is a clearly established principle of the law of war that detention may last no longer than active hostilities.” … Clearly such claims do not have to be brought first in habeas. Similarly, Davis v. U.S. Sentencing Commission is also not instructive here. In Davis, the D.C.

United States v. Mitchell

397 F. Supp. 166 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 1974

He thus qualifies for the exemption proviso of § 203. … Pre-trial conferences should be scheduled with trial counsel, stated periods established for filing and disposition of motions, discovery procedures scheduled, and early trial date fixed and maintained.

Wise v. United States

145 F. Supp. 3d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 17, 2015

On appellate review, findings of fact “must not be set aside unless clearly erroneous.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a)(6). IV. FINDINGS OF FACT A. … CONCLUSIONS OF LAW The Federal Tort Claims Act (FTCA) is a limited waiver of sovereign immunity that makes the federal government liable to the same extent as a private individual for certain torts committed by

United States v. Yindeear-Rom

217 F. Supp. 3d 348 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2016

Clearly, Mr. Warren’s testimony was presented under materially different circumstances than those attending the government’s witness in Pulungan. … That was clearly its role and the Court had no basis to take the question from the jury.

Gebretsadike v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2023

Nevertheless, Gebretsadike was able to complete the application by April 29, 2020, and he "continued to take the weekly actions necessary to keep qualifying for benefits." Id. … C. 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and Municipal Liability 42 U.S.C. § 1983 provides a cause of action for any person "depriv[ed] of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws" "under color of

AFL-CIO v. Dole

745 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 1990

approve a petition for the importation of alien workers, the employer seeking the approval must first obtain from the Secretary of Labor certification that: (A) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, and qualified … Accordingly, the regulation establishes a floor wage for agricultural workers, the “adverse effect wage rate.”

Philbrick v. Azar II

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2019

Upon review, the Court can see why: at least one Plaintiff clearly has standing. Only a few sentences are needed to show as much. … By defining a statute’s purposes up a level of generality, the Secretary can justify actions as consistent with the law even if they are clearly at odds with it.

Prater v. Fedex Corporate Services Inc

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 18, 2009

plaintiff has established an inference of discrimination. … Clearly, “the plaintiff can meet [his] burden of [establishing pretext] by either direct or circumstantial evidence.” Dunaway v. Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, 310 F.3d 758, 763 (D.C. Cir. 2002).