Case law

Manning v. Fanning

211 F. Supp. 3d 129 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2016

stepchild, foster child, or recognized natural child who lived with that person in a regular parent-child relationship,” the statute is simply illustrating examples of the types of parent-child relationships which might qualify … These decisions were clearly supported by the available evidence of record and by the absence of compelling independent evidence provided by the applicant.

A. G. Becker Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

519 F. Supp. 602 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 1981

It is beyond dispute that agency action is reviewable absent a showing that Congress specifically and clearly intended to preclude judicial oversight. … The Board suggests that its decision is immune from judicial alteration unless arbitrary, capricious, or wholly irrational.

Fogo De Chao Churrascaria (Holdings) LLC v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

959 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2013

Thus, the Office found that “the record as presently constituted does not clearly document that [Mr. … Although the legislation clearly contemplates the possibility of there being an employer with “more than 50 percent of [its] employees” working in the United States as “nonimmigrants admitted pursuant to . . . section

Rodriguez v. United States Department of Treasury

131 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 1990

would have resulted in his failure to qualify. … To establish a prima facie case under the Rehabilitation Act, a plaintiff must show that (1) he is a “handicapped person” under the statute; (2) he was “otherwise qualified” for the position in question; (3) that he was denied

Denny Klepper Oil Co. v. United States Department of Energy

598 F. Supp. 522 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 2, 1984

First, it contends as a matter of law that it could not be required to show that it did not pass on the overcharges to qualify for a refund. … The two-part proceeding established by the Department in this case was an entirely proper way of trying to funnel refunds as much as possible to those actually injured by the overcharges, and it was well within the agency's

Perlstein v. Lambert Coal Co. (In Re AOV Industries, Inc.)

64 B.R. 933 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 1986

The importance of the qualifier “apparently” cannot be over-emphasized. In Ore & Chemical, the court did not rule that the letter-of-credit proceeds paid to Ore & Chemical by Commerzbank constituted Alla’s property. … offers a compelling argument in his well-reasoned law review article on letters of credit and preference law: To accommodate both letter of credit and preference policy, the bank’s payment to the beneficiary ... should be immunized

Act Now to Stop War and End Racism Coalition v. District of Columbia

905 F. Supp. 2d 317 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 29, 2012

The Supreme Court has established a two-step test for analyzing substantial overbreadth. … The first step is to clearly identify the unconstitutional provisions, so the Court can consider what the law would look like without those provisions.

Norex Petroleum Ltd. v. Chubb Insurance Co. of Canada

384 F. Supp. 2d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2005

. § 1782 , which establishes a mechanism by which United States district courts may provide discovery assistance to litigants in foreign proceedings. … “The burden of establishing control over the documents sought is on the party seeking production.” 7 Moore’s Federal Practice § 34.14(2)(b) (2004).

In Re Guantanamo Bay Detainee Litigation

624 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2009

The right of access is qualified, however. … According to these Circuits, “[t]he public’s right of access to civil trials and records is as well established as that of criminal proceedings and records.” Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1066 .

Velikonja v. Mueller

315 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 13, 2004

Although actions falling short of an outright firing can be considered adverse, not all personnel decisions with negative consequences for the employee necessarily qualify as adverse actions. … Pretext may be established “by showing that the employer’s proffered explanation is unworthy of credence.” Burdine, 450 U.S. at 256 , 101 S.Ct. 1089 .

Diamond v. McKenzie

602 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 1985

on defendants’ motion to dismiss 1 and after a trial on the merits. 2 I The underlying facts are as follows: Daniel is a 17 year old severely learning disabled and severely emotionally disturbed child and as such he is a qualified … Clearly then the plaintiffs are aggrieved as that term is used in the EHA and thus they are properly before this Court.

California Forestry Ass'n v. Thomas

936 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1996

“Government acts constricting a firm’s supply of its main raw material clearly inflict the constitutionally necessary injury.” Mountain States Legal Foundation et al. v. … Sept. 20, 1993) (“economic injuries are not within NEPA’s zone of interests”). 13 Nonetheless, a plaintiffs economic interests “do not blight his qualifying ones, such as aesthetic and environmental interests in the quality

National Wildlife Federation v. Burford

676 F. Supp. 271 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 1985

. §§ 1701 et seq. (1982) (FLPMA), establishes comprehensive rules for the management of federal lands. … The Public Interest The public interest clearly favors granting the preliminary injunction.

United States v. Rhine

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2023

But regardless of which government agency restricted the area or where a qualifying “visit” may take place, § 1752(a)(1) and (a)(2), as narrowed by the definitions in § 1752(c), clearly pass the low bar to provide “fair … I think that’s clearly reasonable.”).

Craig v. Mnuchin

278 F. Supp. 3d 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2017

Cir. 2007); see also Woodruff, 482 F.3d at 530 (“If temporal proximity sufficed to rebut a legitimate proffer, then protected activities would effectively grant employees a period of immunity, during which no act, however … Craig is “significantly better qualified for the job” and Mr.' Craig makes no serious attempt to argue that point.

Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice

202 F. Supp. 3d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2016

Having established the privacy interest at stake, the Court must weigh protection of that interest through nondisclosure “against the public interest in the release of the records.” … Second, disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.

Schrecker v. United States Dep't of Justice

74 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 29, 1999

As its basic premise, the Act establishes that government agency records should be accessible to the public. … As a preliminary matter, to qualify for this exemption, the information must be contained in personnel, medical or “similar files.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6); see also United States Dep’t of State v.

Zhang v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2025

Kodama established J. Kodama, Inc. (“JKI”) on April 5, 2011. See AR, ECF No. 27-1 at 252. On January 1, 2012, Mr. Kodama gave Mr. … Indeed, it remarked that “Defendants’ evidence does not establish that Mr. Hagiwara’s net worth exceeded $2,000,000.” Mem. Op., ECF No. 58 at 13.

Armstrong v. Accrediting Council for Continuing Education & TrainIng, Inc.

832 F. Supp. 419 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 1993

In short, the application of § 28-3809 to the HEA would prevent schools from performing functions that clearly are contemplated by the HEA; it therefore must be preempted. … First, the court holds as a matter of law that the absence of the holder notice is not unconscionable. 28 To establish unconscionability, plaintiff “must prove not only that one of the parties lacked a meaningful choice but

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 2020

Nevertheless, in light of the fact that “a [p]resident does not have immunity after he leaves office,” Special Counsel Mueller “conducted a thorough factual investigation in order to preserve the evidence when memories … At the same time, if [he] had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that [ ] President [Trump] clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, [he] would so state.