Case law

Judith CARTER, Plaintiff, v. BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., Et Al., Defendants

888 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2012

Sixth, the plaintiff alleges that she was “never notified about [a] higher rate to qualify. … The Note signed by Plaintiff clearly states that ‘I understand that the Lender may transfer this Note.’” Defs. BOA & MERS’ Mem. at 23 (citing Ex. B).

Webster v. Pacesetter, Inc.

171 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 1, 2001

Thus, this Court must consider whether (1) through the PMA process the FDA establishes specific federal “requirements” applicable to the Pacesetter atrial lead; and (2) what, if any, federal requirements have been established … serve the same purposes: “[T]he FDA simultaneously maintains the exhaustive PMA and the more limited § 510(k) processes in order to ensure both that medical devices are reasonably safe and effective and that, if the device qualifies

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.

Ovanova Construction Services LLC v. United States Department of Agriculture

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 2026

For example, the businesses have been unable to qualify for “time-sensitive tax incentives” that are essential for financing energy projects. Id. … In this Circuit, certain administrative-exhaustion requirements can be excused under exceptional circumstances when “resort to administrative remedies is clearly useless.” Commc’ns Workers of Am. v. Am. Tel. & Tel.

Tiare Enterprises, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation

246 F. Supp. 3d 437 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Parts 23 and 26,l set forth the eligibility requirements and required procedures for firms wishing to qualify as disadvantaged business enterprises and work at airports receiving funds under the Airport lmprovement Program … The notice stated that Tiare 6 was not economically disadvantaged because Fithian’s income placed her in the top 0.1% of wage earners, “the strength of her personal net worth qualifie[d her] to own numerous real estate

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

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.

Transport Robert (1973) LTEE v. U.S. Immigration & Naturalization Service

940 F. Supp. 338 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 1996

In the alternative, Defendant filed a cross-motion for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff has not established that INS’ actions were arbitrary and capricious. … In NALCC, this circuit set the parameters for deciding when a letter produced by an agency in response to an inquiry can qualify as “final agency action.”

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.”).

Jordan v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2025

There, a convicted felon objected to the state’s practice of collecting fluid or tissue samples from qualifying offenders to create a law-enforcement DNA database. Kaemmerling, 553 F.3d at 673–74. … Clearly, then, the Department did not “lack[] other means of achieving its desired goal[s].” Hobby Lobby, 573 U.S. at 728.

Central Tool v. INTERN. ASS'N OF MACHINISTS, ETC.

523 F. Supp. 812 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 1981

National Pension Fund, supra , clearly supports its position in this regard. … employer from subsequent termination from the plan than the employee who resigned twenty-five months before termination, his experience is not qualitatively different from that of an employee lacking one day of service to qualify

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.

Shirouyehnezhad v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2025

By July 2022, Plaintiff had received notification from NVC that all three beneficiaries were “documentarily qualified,” and that the U.S. … Opp’n at 15. 1 As already noted, however, that Order does not create any clear duty or timeline with respect to scheduling visa interviews, or 1 The Complaint does not clearly allege that Defendants intentionally

United States v. Arrington

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2019

And second, it “leaves uncertainty about how much risk it takes for a crime to qualify as a violent felony. … Clearly there are multiple reasonable interpretations of Johnson’s reach.

Monument Realty LLC v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

540 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2008

The second bid contained an escalating-bid clause, in which MRB 7 agreed to pay $250,000 more than any other qualified bidder. Id. … Bottigheimer’s memorandum clearly suggests that if Akridge had not been awarded the bid, MRB 7 would have been next in line for the award.

Bridges Public Charter School v. Barrie

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2011

A qualified impartial hearing officer conducts the due process hearing. … Supp. 2d 175, 182 (D.D.C. 2010) (“[W]here a defendant is seeking to establish ‘prevailing party’ status, that party need not establish a court-ordered change in the legal relationship of the parties.”)

Wilson v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

631 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2009

This is, at best, a mischaracterization of the cited portion of Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment, which clearly explains that the only unverified , information pertained specifically to the identity of the person who … While Burkholder has a substantial disciplinary history, for the reasons stated above, he does not qualify as a similarly-situated individual. IV.

Rakhimov v. Gacki

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2020

Cir. 2001) (presence within National Press Building in United States and interest in small bank account qualified as substantial connections), with 32 Cty. Sovereignty Comm. v. U.S. … According to Plaintiff, “These procedures clearly presume that designated persons have an 13 understanding of the reasons for their designation and are placed in a position

Alberts v. HCA, Inc.

496 B.R. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2013

This Court certainly agrees that “Accounting errors are not immune from challenge on appeal,” id., but does not understand how the alleged egregiousness of a lower court’s errors affects the standard of review. 5 The *12 … Nowhere in Alberts’ briefs does he clearly concede that certain findings of the bankruptcy court are actually factual, but do not survive review under the clearly erroneous standard.