Case law

Save Jobs USA v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

210 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2016

for establishing an APA cause of action. … However, the record indicates that DHS clearly justified its change in policy, see 80 Fed.

Gjoci v. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2024

After a selectee’s documents are reviewed and approved, the documentarily qualified applicant must then wait for their number to become current under the State Department Visa Bulletin. 9 FAM 502.6-4(c)(1)(B). … But this case is readily distinguishable from Uzuegbunam, in which the plaintiffs—college students who were prevented from distributing religious literature in their college campus’s “free speech zone,”—had clearly articulated

Forrester v. United States Parole Commission

310 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2004

Furthermore, defendant asserts that plaintiff cannot obtain monetary damages because such relief is barred by the doctrine of sovereign immunity. Id. at 12. … Defendant also clearly invokes Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), as it argues that plaintiff has failed to state a claim under § 1983 or the Privacy Act.

Merit Health River Region v. Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2025

Statutory and Regulatory Background Medicare is a federally funded program that reimburses healthcare providers for delivering medical care to qualifying elderly and disabled individuals. … The Court is satisfied that the Board adequately considered the asserted reasons for QRS’s delay and “carefully and clearly ex- plained” why QRS did not show good cause. CAR 3, 59.

Technology for Communications International, Inc. v. Garrett

783 F. Supp. 1446 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 1992

By including the GAO in the notification scheme established by the statute, Congress arguably determined that there was a need for a clearly-defined “chain of command” for notification purposes. … Lastly, and most importantly, the technical evaluators selected by the Navy for this procurement are certainly more qualified to opine on the technical merit *1450 of the proposals than the Court, the GAO or counsel. 9 .

Roane v. Gonzales

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2010

Paul and the existing plaintiffs assert, in part, that unless the drug is “administered by a qualified individual, the condemned person may . . . [experience] horrific pain[.]” (Compl. ¶ 37.) … The defendants counter that Paul “cannot demonstrate that disposition of this suit will impede his ability to protect his interest” because he “could have clearly sought the relief that he is requesting . . .

Drabkin v. Capital Bank, N.A. (In Re Latin Investment Corp.)

156 B.R. 102 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 1993

Sanchez, a vice president of Capital Bank, N.A., establishes the bank’s practice of allowing transfer by delivery of the type of certificate of deposit at issue here but fails to establish that there is wide recognition of … The instant CD, on its face, is clearly not negotiable. See UCC § 3-104(a)(1).

United States v. Bray

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2024

But fair notice is not implicated by the possibility that “it will sometimes be difficult to determine whether the incriminating fact [the statute] establishes has been proved.” Id. … The indictment here clearly sets out the nature of the offense, the location of the offense, and the date on which the offense occurred. See Indictment at 1–2. It does so “in the words of the statute itself.” Id.

Mattwaoshshe v. Nextera Energy, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2021

Rather, the APA acts as a “waiver of sovereign immunity” for claims against federal agencies in certain circumstances. Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 186 (D.C. Cir. 2006). The distinction is not pedantic. … In order to bring a claim, a Plaintiff must establish both standing and ripeness.

Gill v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2010

Defendant. ) ) MEMORANDUM OPINION Wesleyann and Warren Gill are ardent advocates for their son, W.G., who qualifies … The education of a special needs child like W.G. cannot be forfeited by lawyering when the facts and needs of the child are clearly revealed in the record and findings of the Hearing Officer.

Muttitt v. United States Central Command

926 F. Supp. 2d 284 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2013

The document cited by the plaintiff clearly does not require that e-mail records be kept in an electronic recordkeeping system. … Grafeld clearly “had the authority to classify as ‘Confidential’ Documents N13, NE2, NE4, NE10, and N1,” Def.’s Reply at 13, the State Department has not established that Ms.

FTC v. Manager, Retail Credit Co., Miami Branch Office

357 F. Supp. 347 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 23, 1973

The right of the consumer to limit governmental access to personal data in consumer reports to those occasions when the Government agency qualifies under section 604 would thus be frustrated. … Clearly it was not the intent of Congress to provide this back door approach to obtaining the desired information.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. U.S. Department of Justice

846 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2012

First, Exemption 6 encompasses “clearly unwarranted” invasions of privacy, while Exemption 7(C) omits the adverb “clearly.” See id. … “[T]he mere fact that records pertain to an individual’s activities,” however, does not necessarily entail that there is no cognizable public interest in their disclosure and thereby qualify them for an exemption. Id.

Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

366 F. Supp. 763 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 1973

The Company’s policy was that any FSA who had successfully completed his FSA probationary period was thereby deemed qualified for purser vacancies. 15. … The duties of each cabin attendant position are clearly defined in the Cabin Service Manual and cabin service bulletins.

Peabody Coal Co. v. Watt

553 F. Supp. 1201 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 1982

Several of the provisions of the Act are known collectively as “prime farmlands provisions.” 2 These sections establish special requirements for surface mining operations that are to be conducted on land that qualifies as … Taken together, the court of appeals decision elucidates two principles as rather clearly expressing Congressional intent.

Alaska Excursion Cruises, Inc. v. United States

608 F. Supp. 1084 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 1985

Individually, these factors are clearly insufficient to demonstrate that Westours is the de facto “owner” of the GLACIER QUEEN. … The court is unable to conclude, however, that Marad’s interpretation of the charter order was either unreasonable or clearly erroneous.

Day v. United States Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2020

Defendant’s failure to respond to plaintiff’s requests for admission does not establish its violation of FOIA. … The Court is satisfied that documents like the ones identified above qualify as “similar files” for purposes of Exemption 6.

Montgomery v. McDonough

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2025

The Act provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability in the United States, as defined in section 705(20) of this title, shall, solely by reason of her or his disability” be discriminated against … But if anything, these limited occurrences of upsetting comments demonstrate that any hostility was infrequent, and clearly did not prevent Ms.

Hennepin County v. Bowen

689 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 1988

The statute authorizes the Secretary to establish the methods for determining costs. Id. … Originally, the Secretary lacked the authority to establish cost limits.

Reed v. District of Columbia

134 F. Supp. 3d 122 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2015

Eley seems, furthermore, to instruct that the relevant inquiry is whether IDEA proceedings as a class of litigation qualify as “complex federal litigation” to be compensated at one of the Laffey rates – rendering the Magistrate … Because a “settlement conference” may qualify as a “resolution session” under IDEA, Plaintiffs’ billing records must clearly establish that the meetings so identified are not statutorily excludable sessions.