Case law

Gilmore v. Palestinian Interim Self-Government Authority

53 F. Supp. 3d 191 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2014

Matters pertaining to the admissibility of evidence must be established by a preponderance of evidence. Daubert v. … Passenger Corp., 315 14 Indeed, Abu Halawa was promoted posthumously after his assassination, clearly indicating that the mere fact of a promotion does not imply the ongoing provision of services.

Queen City Brewing Co. v. District of Columbia

134 F.2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 1943

This, we think, clearly appears from Marye v. Baltimore & O. R. Co. 127 U.S. 117 , 8 S.Ct. 1037, 1038 , 82 L.Ed. 94 . … The Oil Company was an Illinois corporation and on that.ground claimed immunity from taxation in Oklahoma.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics v. U.S. Department of Justice

822 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2011

Information need not be intimate or embarrassing to qualify for Exemption 6 protection. Horowitz v. Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 279 (D.C.Cir.2005). … First, whereas Exemption 6 requires that the invasion of privacy be 'clearly unwarranted,’ the adverb 'clearly' is omitted from Exemption 7(C)____[And,] whereas Exemption 6 refers to disclosures that 'would constitute' an

Ali Shafi v. Palestinian Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2010

An international norm must be sufficiently definite and accepted “among civilized nations” to qualify for the ATS jurisdictional grant. Sosa, 542 U.S. at 732. … Supp. 2d 424, 429-30 (S.D.N.Y. 2004) (refusing to dismiss claims against the PA and PLO on sovereign immunity grounds because they did not establish that Palestine is a state under § 201 of the Restatement (Third) of Foreign

Cessna Aircraft Co. v. Brown

452 F. Supp. 1245 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 1978

Procurement of the C-12 will allow the Navy to share the common contractor support already established for the Army and Air Force. … and convincingly establish . . that formal advertising would not have been feasible and practicable.”

Hines Immigration Law, Pllc v. Executive Office for Immigration Review

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 2026

In any event, “operational disruptions and inefficiencies . . . are simply not the kind of devastating irreparable economic losses” that qualify as irreparable harm. Experience Works, Inc. v. Chao, 267 F. … Beyond that, Plaintiffs’ inability to show that the balance of the equities clearly weighs in their favor cautions against granting a stay.

Shah v. Broadcasting Board of Governors

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2020

Although a refusal to promote qualifies as a materially adverse action, see Taylor v. Solis, 571 F.3d 1313, 1321 (D.C. … SHAH: So in order to become GS-13, you have to go through the requirements to then be able to qualify for GS-13.

Dyer v. McCormick & Schmick's Seafood Restaurants, Inc.

264 F. Supp. 3d 208 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2017

Dyer has failed to identify any admissible evidence, however, establishing the existence, much less the specific substance, of the alleged email. … Dkt. 37-7 at 3–4. 20 E.g., “Brett needs to clearly communicate[] his intentions and expectations,” “needs to follow- up with write ups and coaching,” needs to “[e]nforce gro[o]ming, and hygiene[e] rules regardless [of]

Bronner v. Duggan

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2019

The Court considered the parties’ supplemental briefing and held that it could not conclude, at the pleadings stage, that District of Columbia law immunized the Individual Defendants from money damages. … Plaintiffs assert that these requests for relief “clearly satisf[y] the $75,000 requirement.” Pls.’ Opp’n to Original Defs.’ Mot. (“Pls.’ Opp’n”) at 37, ECF No. 114.

Ervin and Associates, Inc. v. Dunlap

33 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 1997

Based upon this assumption, Ervin has clearly met his burden of pleading facts to support his allegation that the termination of his preex *8 isting relationship with HUD was motivated by his speech on matters of public concern … He alleges that Williams, the contractor who won the First Due Diligence contract, was not qualified as an 8(a) contractor. Complaint at 19, 63.

Douglass v. District of Columbia

750 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 2010

DCPS discriminated against Herbert based solely on his disability by not having the appropriately qualified teachers in his classes.”). … The law requires Plaintiff to establish “exceptional circumstances,” and Plaintiff has fallen woefully short of satisfying his burden here.

Association of American Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Clinton

813 F. Supp. 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 1993

Consequently, they are not directly ‘established or utilized’ by the President or any agency ‘in the interest of obtaining advice or recommendations’.’ 557 F.Supp. at 529 . … On the other hand, the congressional interest in openness and accountability clearly is present at these meetings.

Sierra Club v. Mullen

619 F. Supp. 1244 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 4, 1985

As this particular claim was nowhere alleged by Sierra Club, NORML is clearly a prevailing party on this issue. *1249 II. … “[T]he more clearly established are the governing norms, and the more clearly they dictate a result in favor of the private litigant, the less ‘justified’ it is for the government to pursue or persist in litigation.”

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Local 2, Office and Professional Employees Int'l Union, Afl-Cio

965 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2013

Section 12 therefore cannot be read as a list of entrepreneurial powers immune from arbitrability. … In addition to requiring qualified laid-off workers to be recalled prior to subcontracting, the Award provides that “a permanent joint Labor/Management Contracting Committee shall be established to review existing and proposed

Daniels v. Union Pacific Railroad

480 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2007

The failure to exhaust is clearly fatal to all the claims the union purports to bring on behalf of individuals other than Daniels. … It is well established that this is the appropriate avenue for judicial review in a case such as this. See The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Co., v.

Turner Broadcasting v. Federal Communications Commission

910 F. Supp. 734 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 1995

STANDARD OF REVIEW The Supreme Court clearly dictated that this Court is to employ a deferential standard of review in analyzing the constitutionality of the “must-carry” provisions. … Century Rules The Century cable rules, which were imposed by the FCC, clearly would not come close to providing the same coverage as that provided by the 1992 Cable Act rules.

Angelex Ltd. v. United States

272 F. Supp. 3d 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2017

Section 1904(h) clearly authorizes compensation for both unreasonable detentions and unreasonable delays. … Here, Congress did not clearly prohibit judicial’ review.

Zhengxing v. Nathanson

215 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2002

Legal Standard for Motion to Dismiss On a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction. … Zhengxing qualified as an employee or an independent contractor. Spirides, 613 F.2d at 831-32 .

Base One Technologies, Inc. v. Ali

78 F. Supp. 3d 186 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 2015

Pursuant to Section 1 of the Agreements, each Defendant “acknowledge[d]” the “substantial time, effort and money” expended by Plaintiff in identifying potential client business and qualified employees. … This benefit was clearly acquired at Plaintiff’s expense: it had invested a great deal of time and effort in cultivating its relationship with IBM and providing it with qualified IT staff to satisfy its needs.

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States

170 F. Supp. 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 1959

in § 209(b) by the 1957 amendment; and whatever may have been the original reason for instituting the legislation which culminated in the 1957 amendment, § 209(b), as it read at the time the Commission issued this order, clearly … Subject to section 310 of this title, a permit shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor authorizing in whole or in part the operations covered by the application, if it appears from the applications or from any