Case law

Waters v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2022

Mary Hosp., 530 F.3d 255, 259 (3d Cir. 2008) (“[Rule 12(c)] [j]udgment will only be granted where the moving party clearly establishes there are no material issues of fact, and that he or she is entitled to judgment as a … Karaganis, 811 F.2d 357, 358 (7th Cir. 1987) (“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be granted only if the moving party clearly establishes that no material issue of fact remains to be resolved and that he or she is

Wellness Pharmacy, Inc. v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2021

The Final Standard MOU establishes an agreement between individual state pharmacy boards and FDA. … For plaintiff Wellness Pharmacy in Alabama, the injuries associated with the five-percent restriction are clearly not speculative. That is because Alabama has already indicated that it will not sign the MOU.

City of Tempe v. Federal Aviation Administration

239 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 2003

Those rules were established in 1993, and are codified at 40 C.F.R. Part 93, Subpart B, §§ 93.150-160. … Even if plaintiffs could establish that they would be harmed by PM10 emissions, the evidence before the Court is that PM10 emissions from the Center Runway Project will not even reach the threshold (established by the EPA

Lardner v. Department of Justice

638 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2009

To properly assert Exemption 7(C), OPA must first establish that the records at issue were compiled for law enforcement purposes. … Accordingly, without further elaboration from OPA as to the bases for such a conclusion that it is a law enforcement agency, the fact that DOJ — and not OPA — is clearly a law enforcement agency is insufficient to establish

Mannina v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2019

The log clearly identifies the documents, the senders and recipients where applicable, and includes a descriptive narrative describing the reasons for redacting or withholding each document. … Moreover, the unredacted and released portions of Document 1 clearly reveal the policy purpose and objective of the Task Force.

Committee of 100 On Federal City v. Hodel

611 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 1985

The amendmeftt also included provisions to allow the Secretary of the Interior to make minor boundary changes in certain national parks and to accept qualifying land adjacent to a national park by donation. Id. … The agency’s decision was based on a clearly erroneous interpretation of § 9(c).

National Council of Community Mental Health Centers, Inc. v. Weinberger

387 F. Supp. 991 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 1974

The law is settled that where a fund has been created in litigation with the Government, and the Government stands as it does here in the position of a stakeholder required to pay over that fund to qualified beneficiaries … He points out that some of this type of litigation is unpopular (this was clearly not such a case) and such causes are not always well compensated.

United States v. Mosquera-Murillo

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2018

Cir. 2010) (noting that it is the defendant’s burden to establish safety-valve eligibility and affirming denial of safety-valve eligibility, upon finding that “[t]he district court did not clearly err in thinking it highly … Cir. 2000) (defendant “bears the burden to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that he is entitled to safety[-]valve relief”); United States v.

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad

225 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 1964

No definite agreement is to be clearly found in any single document or series of documents. … The statute is clearly constitutional as being within the power of the Congress.

United States v. Ochs

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 1, 2024

By establishing their actual innocence of Section 1512(c)(2) because their specific actions were not criminalized by that statute, as limited by Fischer, defendants would also establish their innocence of the charged conspiracy … The court noted that the representations in the affidavit were corroborated by (1) a statement in the plea agreement establishing that the defendant would not be prosecuted for any other crimes established by his Statement

Lee v. Kemp

731 F. Supp. 1101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 1989

In short, they clearly are "self-imposed controls over the manner and circumstances in which the agency will exercise its plenary power.” Pickus v. U.S., 507 F.2d at 1107, 1113 (D.C.Cir.1974). … In defendant’s view, only those who can qualify for a mortgage under the program are within the zone of interests. He argues that, by definition, homeless persons cannot qualify for mortgages.

Senior Executives Ass'n v. United States

576 F. Supp. 1207 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1983

In Title IV of the Civil Service Reform Act of 1978 (CSRA), Congress established the SES in order to afford federal agencies the flexibility needed to recruit and retain highly qualified executives for service in the higher … The 25 percent maximum authorized by Congress was clearly meant to be an outer limit on the number of awards an agency could issue, not a goal to be achieved.

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

164 F. Supp. 3d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2016

But they do not rebut what the Supplemental Opinion in Irons clearly established, which is that FOIA supplies a remedy for an alleged violation of Section 552(a)(2). Plaintiff also relies on Public Citizen, Inc. v. … Reply at 18-21; (3) even if OLC opinions qualified under Section 552(a)(2), the opinions would be exempt from disclosure by the "attorney-client” and "deliberative process” privileges, see Mot. to Dismiss at 29-35; Defs.’

Leopold v. Central Intelligence Agency

177 F. Supp. 3d 479 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2016

Or, to state it more clearly, if, upon closer inspection by CIA personnel, the document was “clearly” irrelevant to the request, it was deemed “non-responsive.” … Plaintiffs acknowledge that the CIA provided a set of terms that it used in its search, but argue that because the agency qualified that list by using “such as,” it obfuscated the search terms it actually used.

United States v. Shi

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2019

Section 2B1.1(a) of the Sentencing Guidelines establishes the base offense level for theft- related offenses, including theft of trade secrets. … With mens rea established, the Court next considers the appropriate method of estimating the loss amount.

Dl v. District of Columbia

194 F. Supp. 3d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 21, 2016

services when they do not qualify. … Ex. 5, at 5 (“Evaluation team does not have enough data to qualify student.”).

Kayode v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2023

Kayode asserts that she was not selected for three positions despite being better qualified than those ultimately hired, who were white, non- Nigerian, non-disabled males who had not filed EEO complaints or requested accommodations … The Court admonished Kayode that the “Amended Complaint must clearly state Plaintiff’s claims.” Id. at 2.

Mason v. African Development Foundation

355 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2004

Therefore, in Nichols , the Court reasoned that because the plaintiff had sued only the agency instead of the agency head, and because “Congress has not waived [the agency’s] sovereign immunity under Title VII, the Court … Whether the plaintiff qualifies as an employee as compared to an independent contractor is the issue presented to the Court in the defendant’s motion to dismiss.

Whitlock v. U.S. Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2025

The Oakes Declaration establishes that the privacy interests here are compelling, while the public interest in disclosing this information is relatively weak. … “For purposes of Exemption 7(A), a pending appeal of a criminal conviction qualifies as an ongoing law enforcement proceeding.” Adionser v. DOJ, 811 F.

Danik v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2020

Because FOIA does not define “agency records,” the Supreme Court has established a two-part test to determine whether documents qualify as agency records: 1) “whether the records were created or obtained by the agency,” … Br. at 9–10), but it fails to establish that burden.