Case law

Adams v. District of Columbia

740 F. Supp. 2d 173 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2010

Id. at 12 (noting that a mere assertion of failure to exhaust administrative remedies without more is “clearly inadequate under prevailing regulations to establish a failure to exhaust administrative remedies”). … Absent “extraordinary circumstances,” the District of Columbia is immune to punitive damages claims. Hunter v. Dist. of Columbia, 384 F.Supp.2d 257, 262 n. 4 (D.D.C.2005) (citing Smith v.

Russel - Murray Hospice, Inc. v. Sebelius

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2010

For the reasons discussed, however, this statement is clearly erroneous under Athens and is, therefore, without force. … Yet, as every court to have addressed these issues has concluded, the plain and unambiguous language of the statute clearly establishes a methodology for determining the “number of beneficiaries,” one that is fundamentally

City of New York v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

960 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2013

In this circuit, that phrase is interpreted in light of the Supreme Court’s reading of the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act. … But the language of the easement clearly encompasses both the bridge structure and the right of way.

Friendship Edison Public Charter School Collegiate Campus v. Nesbitt

669 F. Supp. 2d 80 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 18, 2009

I set an evidentiary hearing where I expected defendant to provide a witness or a number of witnesses to testify, either from personal knowledge, or, if they were appropriately qualified, as experts about the following topics … The 2005 evaluations are clearly the value of “b.” Therefore, to establish an estimated value for “y,” Dr. Marryshow had only to compare the 2002 evaluations to the 2005 evaluations.

Wilson v. Fulwood

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2011

Cir. 1987) (noting that an “agency regulation can define the exact scope of a duty that Congress has clearly created” by statute, such that the regulation is actionable under § 1983, “[b]ut where Congress has not clearly … Supp. 2d at 162–63 (noting that although “sovereign immunity is not waived under § 1983,” because “[t]hat immunity . . . does not extend to injunctive relief against officials in their official His ex post facto assertions

Harris v. Medical Transportation Management, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2021

to MTM clients and waiting for MTM clients qualifies as compensable work under the FLSA.” … Mem. at 16, and certifying an issue class on a damages-related legal question is premature before MTM’s liability has been established.

Bark v. United States Forest Service

37 F. Supp. 3d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2014

The REA also establishes a process by which the public may “participate in the development of or changing of a recreation fee established under [the REA].” 16 U.S.C. § 6803(a) (2012). … The relevant statutory provisions clearly state that the procedure applies to fees established or modified “under this chapter.” 16 U.S.C. § 6803(a) (2012).

Alliance for Bio-Integrity v. Shalala

116 F. Supp. 2d 166 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2000

Here, the plain language of the Statement clearly indicates that it is a policy statement that merely creates a presumption and does not ultimately bind the agency’s discretion. See Brock, 796 F.2d at 537 . … Indeed, were the government to take such action, it might bring itself precariously close to violating the First Amendment’s Establishment Clause.

Securities Industry & Financial Markets Ass'n v. United States Commodity Futures Trading Commission

67 F. Supp. 3d 373 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2014

In this case, plaintiffs’ procedural challenges to the Cross-Border Action are “clearly ripe for review.” See Air Transp. Ass’n v. … Sec’y of Labor, 709 F.3d 1161, 1164 (D.C.Cir.2013) (remand for Department of Labor to more clearly justify its approach).

Roe v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2019

And Mann moves to dismiss the § 1983 claims against him on the basis that he is entitled to qualified immunity. M/A MTD at 8. 1. Wilson First, Wilson. … Mann Finally, Principal Mann, who asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The Court need not reach that question, however, for two reasons.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

255 F. Supp. 3d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2017

That statute, it contends, does not apply here because “the APA establishes both the cause of action and waiver of sovereign immunity.” SRST Reply at 36. … The Tribe argues that because the Oahe crossing does not comply with these conditions, it does not qualify for NWP 12. See SRST MSJ at 43-44.

Guy v. Glickman

945 F. Supp. 324 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1996

In 1993, Virginia suffered from drought and excessive heat, which qualified as eligible disaster conditions under applicable Department of Agriculture regulations. … The underlying statutory purpose clearly required the Secretary to ensure that eligible farmers received disaster compensation, but did not collect windfalls or double payments.

Hope v. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2025

Hoshimov’s statements “failed to explain the situation clearly” and “his answers were not properly recorded.” Compl. ¶ 38. The Complaint suggests that these inaccuracies could be attributed to Mr. … Hoshimov misrepresented that “he intended to engage on B-1/B-2 qualifying activities at the time of his admission on March 23, 2021 – when he actually intended to engage in unauthorized employment.”

Chambers v. Sebelius

6 F. Supp. 3d 118 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2013

However, where no vacancy exists, a supervisor less clearly possesses the authority to promote an employee above the highest level of a career ladder position. … Indeed, Cones itself recognized the necessity of a vacancy in establishing an adverse employment action for failure to promote.

Oceana, Inc. v. Gutierrez

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2010

The agency clearly reviewed the McAllister Report and responded to its criticisms, which is what the APA demands. See Balt. Gas & Elec. … McAllister disagrees with the agency’s conclusions regarding bias, “[w]hen specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts even if, as

Bates v. NORTHWESTERN HUMAN SERVICES, INC.

583 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2008

. § 225 (2006) (provision requiring mental health services); D.C.Code § 44-901 (2005) (same), “passed the Department of Mental Health Establishment Amendment Act,” which “established ... the Department of Mental Health ([ … In their amended complaint, the plaintiffs themselves reaffirm the distinction between the defendants’ two roles, stating very clearly that “the [defendants ... mismanaged, misappropriated and misused the federal payments

National Rifle Association of America v. Nra Foundation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2026

Code § 19–1304.05, and second, that “a clearly identified intended beneficiary has a justiciable interest in enforcement of the trust,” Hooker, 579 A.2d at 612. … The Foundation interprets this as a rule that only those who contribute trust assets may qualify as a settlor. Reply 5–6. The NRA highlights that D.C.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2025

Fortunately for them, the Chamber’s Article III standing is otherwise clearly established by a “brave” university member. … Yet, even then, “[t]he approval of such a petition shall not, of itself, be construed as establishing that the alien is a nonimmigrant.” Id.

Fine v. Giant Food Stores, Inc.

163 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 1958

There are, however,, .certain clearly established exceptions to the general rule within which such evidence is competent. … Defendant asserts that this witness was not qualified to state an opinion on this question.

(Leave of Court is Needed for Plaintiff) Chandler v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2014

SORA further specifies which crimes qualify as registration offenses. D.C. … As the Court already has noted, the record does not clearly indicate the nature of CSOSA’s “determination” of Chandler’s status as a “potential sex offender.” See supra at 19 n.10.