Case law

Aref v. Holder

953 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2013

And in Coates, the court focused on what was actually in the complaint itself, stating clearly that “we will not strain to find inferences favorable to the plaintiffs which are not apparent on the face of this civil rights … immunity. 22 V.

McNair v. D.C. Department of Employment Services

213 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2016

Clearly, the temporal proximity between Plaintiff’s protected Title VII activity and her termination cannot support a claim of relation on its own. See, e.g., Greer, 113 F. … First, Plaintiff’s disclosure of potential misuse of public funds qualifies as a protected disclosure under the DC-WPA. See D.C. Code § 1–615.52(a)(6) (listing “gross mismanagement . . .

St. Paul Mercury Insurance Company v. Capitol Sprinkler Inspection Inc

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2009

Without expert testimony “offer[ing] credible evidence sufficient to establish a controlling standard of care,” Briggs, 481 F.3d at 841, Capitol Sprinkler cannot establish that St. … Clearly he believed that the strength of his case depended largely upon the testimony of these witnesses in their particular areas of expertise”).

Government Accountability Project v. Food & Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2016

No. 110-316, 122 Stat. 3509 (establishing that Section 105 of ADUFA was enacted on August 14, 2008). 9 statute need satisfy only one of them to qualify under Exemption … And the repetition of the term “reported” in the subsection clearly supports this narrow construction.

Kindred Healthcare, Inc. v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2020

For a state to qualify for federal funding, the Secretary must approve the state’s Medicaid plan, which lists covered medical services. See 42 U.S.C. §8§ 1396a, 1396b. … The Secretary first points to provisions in PRM that predate the Bad Debt Moratorium, noting § 310 “requires collection efforts to involve the issuance of a bill” and § 322 clearly imposes the must-bill policy on dual-eligibles

Massachusetts Manufacturing Extension Partnership v. Locke

723 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2010

This amendment clarifies and reemphasizes that such agreements and partnerships, and the money spent by those organizations assisting American manufacturers, clearly are to be considered proper cost share as long as the partnering … This scattering of agency commentary does suggest that in 2005 at least some NIST employees were suggesting that an entity could qualify as a subrecipient if it received something other than money or property from a center

Peralta v. United States Attorney's Office

69 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 1999

See Peralta, 136 F.3d at 173 (“we have observed previously that FBI is ‘clearly ... covered’ by the FOIA”) (citing McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1108 (D.C.Cir.1983)). … Conclusion The Court concludes that FBI has established by detailed affidavits that the redacted information and withheld documents are indeed exempt from disclosure.

Rice v. District of Columbia

818 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2011

This is because a defendant is not permitted to avoid compensating his victim merely because the victim was able to qualify for Medicaid benefits. Id. … The problem with Defendants argument is that the jurors clearly awarded total compensatory damages in the amount $440,208.40.

Truitt v. Barrett

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2021

Truitt argued that the implementation of AFI 36-3209, 6.1 after his commander ordered him not to attend drill clearly indicates that, before its passage, Truitt’s commander did not have the authority to prevent Truitt from … But not all claims involving military action are immune from judicial review. As the D.C. Circuit has held, federal courts have jurisdiction to review APA challenges to decisions by military records correction boards.

Hunnicutt v. Watson

183 F. Supp. 330 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 1960

Defendant alleges that the Ham patent and the Hull patent, when compared to Plaintiff’s claims, show clearly that the subject matter of claims 6, 7 and 8 would be obvious to one normally skilled in the art of devising calculators … * a mere preponderance of the evidence is not sufficient with regard to invention; the Patent Office finding must be accepted if it is ‘consistent with the evidence,’ the Patent Office being an expert body pre-eminently qualified

Mastroni v. Bowen

646 F. Supp. 1032 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 1986

.1972); Fulwood, 594 F.Supp. at 544 (“The ALJ is required to give greatest weight to evidence of a personal, treating physician, particularly when the consultation has been over a considerable length of time, unless this is clearly … outweighed by conflicting evidence of other qualified physicians.”)

Iacangelo v. Georgetown University

560 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2008

of Evidence 702, relating to expert testimony, states that: [i]f scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will assist the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue, a witness qualified … Zimmet, the legal expert reports contain numerous “impermissible legal conclusions” and the prejudice in allowing such experts to testify clearly outweighs any probative value of their testimony, particularly where there

Nicksolat v. United States of America Department of Transportation

277 F. Supp. 3d 122 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 2017

Notably, the judicial proceeding for customer challenges that the RFPA establishes is, in a word, expeditious. See Jerry T. … In this Court’s view, Nicksolat’s personal bank account records clearly qualify as relevant to 8 an investigation into potential fraudulent misrepresentations that she

District of Columbia v. Barrie

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 4, 2010

The Court finds that the District qualifies as a prevailing party. … The District therefore qualifies as a prevailing party under the IDEA’s fee-shifting provisions. B.

Little v. Commercial Audio Associates, Inc.

81 F. Supp. 3d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2015

Although Plaintiffs claim this evidence is unavailable to them because discovery has not yet taken place, they are clearly aware right now of any representations made to them. … Indeed, there is not even an allegation that Commercial Audio made a fraudulent misrepresentation or a statement that might possibly qualify as fraudulent. Discovery is thus unwarranted here. IV.

American Great Lakes Ports Association v. Zukunft

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 3, 2017

The Coast Guard admitted in its final rule that “[o]ther factors contribute to delays,” but it still argued that “clearly pilot shortfalls are one important factor.” Id. at 11,921. … Even if the Coast Guard’s actions in 2015 could be construed as establishing a new policy, the policy is not as broad as Plaintiffs would suggest.

United States v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co.

455 F. Supp. 1072 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 1978

As such, given the broad nature of NHTSA’s concern in this case, this would appear to qualify as a nationwide inquiry within the meaning of F. T. G. v. Cockrell, supra. … Clearly, the review that the court will conduct in that case has little to do with the summary enforcement proceeding now before the court.

Guerrero v. Vilsack

134 F. Supp. 3d 411 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2015

She was not referred as a qualified candidate, however, because she did not have a signed evaluation due to the fact that she had no assigned supervisor to complete an evaluation for fiscal year 2013. Ms. … She clearly complained about a course of alleged mistreatment due to her color (Black), race (Hispanic) and age (52). First Admin.

Clean Label Project Foundation v. Garden of Life, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2021

Legal Standard To establish the existence of a case or controversy, “the plaintiff ‘must clearly . . . allege facts demonstrating’ each element” of Article III standing. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. … But “no matter how longstanding the interest and no matter how qualified the organization is in evaluating the problem,” an organization’s abstract interest in an issue is insufficient to establish standing.

Alhabra v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 2, 2025

STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND The Immigration and Nationality Act (INA) of 1952, 8 U.S.C. § 1101 et seq., authorizes noncitizens to obtain immigrant visas based on a qualifying relationship with an American … “[T]he word ‘may’ clearly connotes discretion.” Biden v. Texas, 597 U.S. 785, 802 (2022) (quoting Opati v. Republic of Sudan, 590 U.S. 418, 419 (2020)).