Case law

Aktieselskabet AF 21. November 2001 v. Fame Jeans, Inc.

511 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2007

Because Bestseller could not, as a matter of law, establish priority, the TTAB dismissed its Opposition with prejudice. Id. … Here, the TTAB’s opinion clearly states: “[Bestseller] does not assert ... that [it] has made any common law use of the JACK & JONES mark....” AKTIESEL-SKABET AF 21. NOVEMBER 2001 v.

United States v. Perez

353 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2018

This court affirmed Judge Robertson's order on this issue, explaining that she "did not clearly err, abuse her discretion, or rule contrary to law in finding that Defendant failed to make an adequate showing of materiality … Nevertheless, this presumption does not rise to the level of a "clear statement" rule, such as that required for Congress to abrogate Eleventh Amendment state sovereign immunity.

Thompson v. United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

146 F. Supp. 3d 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2015

He argued, again, that his request qualified for such rapid treatment under various criteria set forth in 28 C.F.R. § 16.5(d)(1). See id. … On this record, the government-misconduct exemption is clearly inapplicable.

United States v. Hitselberger

991 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2013

Given the record before the Court, it appears that the documents here would comfortably qualify as “relating to the national defense.” … United States, 524 U.S. 184 (1998) and held that “in order to establish a ‘willful’ violation of a statute, ‘the Government must prove that the defendant acted with knowledge that his conduct was unlawful.’”

Fudali v. Pivotal Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2009

That there was a contract between Syngenta and Pivotal is not a trade secret; only its terms expressed in pricing information could possibly qualify. … Fudali thus presented evidence to establish that 1 The parties to this litigation did not provide the Court with official transcripts to aid in resolving these motions.

Beverly Enterprises, Inc. v. Herman

130 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2000

The list of companies that the plaintiff maintains were qualified to be on the list, the deposition from the statistician and Mr. … These steps clearly show the neutrality of the plan used to produce the CMR listing. R. at 1728.

US Dominion, Inc. v. Powell

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2021

immunize every statement contained therein.” … Again, there is no such immunity. See Weyrich, 235 F.3d at 626.

Winder v. Erste

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2011

A non-moving party, however, must establish more than the "mere existence of a scintilla of evidence" in support of its position. Id. at 252. … District of Columbia law has long established that "unless a contrary contractual intent is clearly expressed, all employment is at-will." Turner v. Federal Express Corp., 539 F.

Bradley v. National Collegiate Athletic Association

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2022

I wrote out all my symptoms for you more clearly— • Always extremely tired[. … Williams, qualifies as an agent of American University.

Ferguson v. Small

225 F. Supp. 2d 31 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2002

Ferguson was qualified. In June 1995, Ms. Royal informed plaintiff that the Smithsonian would attempt to accommodate plaintiff as much as possible. Id. ¶ 20 . … Reinckens’ credibility is clearly placed at issue by her apparently conflicting explanations of the reasons for plaintiffs termination. In light of the fact that Ms.

Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. Skinner

752 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 1990

This is clearly what the regulations at issue in Aero Corp. required of the Navy, but it is not what is required of the Secretary. … In this case, the relevant law clearly commits the conduct of litigation to the agency’s discretion.

Compere v. Riordan

368 F. Supp. 3d 164 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2019

While a petitioner may seek to reopen removal proceedings or a stay of removal, he or she must do so through the procedure established by statute and regulation. … Taken together, those provisions clearly articulate the intention of Congress to "strip[ ] federal district courts of jurisdiction to review challenges by aliens to their final orders of removal."

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

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2011

First, whereas Exemption 6 requires that the invasion of privacy be ‘clearly unwarranted,’ the adverb ‘clearly is omitted from Exemption 7(C) . . . . … Information need not be intimate or embarrassing to qualify for Exemption 6 protection. Horowitz v. Peace Corps, 428 F.3d 271, 279 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

United States v. H & R Block, Inc.

789 F. Supp. 2d 74 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2011

In this case, none of these factors clearly favor transfer. … The Court also finds that the relative congestion of the transferee and transferor courts does not clearly weigh in favor of transfer.

In Re RAIL FREIGHT FUEL SURCHARGE ANTITRUST LITIGATION

287 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2012

That subsection does not — as Defendants assert — immunize any discussion or agreement relating in any way to anything having to do with interline traffic. … As a result, the Fuel Surcharge program was clearly not superior to the RCAF in this respect.

Margolis v. Prudential Insurance Co. of America

629 F. Supp. 195 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 1985

In lieu of that, she could be taken care of at a qualified nursing home.” Def.Ex. 7 at 22. It was the opinion of Dr. … Clearly plaintiff is not able to wait until the Ward’s illness is terminated to submit additional bills.

Zalduondo v. Aetna Health Inc

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2012

Zalduondo maintaining that these physicians weren’t qualified to perform her surgery. Id. ¶31– 32. … Indeed, the Supreme Court has stated clearly that § 1132(a)(2) “does not provide a remedy for individual beneficiaries.” Varity Corp. v. Howe, 516 U.S. 489, 515 (1996). In short, Ms.

Property of the People, Inc. v. Office of Management and Budget

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 19, 2019

The sole question for the Court, then, is whether OMB has established that this privilege claim is proper. … It follows, then, that the Deputy Legal Adviser’s superiors—who work even closer to the President—qualify as well.

Herrman v. Coleman

428 F. Supp. 447 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 1977

This Title VII 1 action came on for a de novo trial pursuant to the procedures established by the Supreme Court in the Chandler 2 case. 3 This Memorandum Opinion will serve as the Court’s Findings and Conclusions. … The Chief testified that Congressmen and Senators had constitutional immunity from arrest and he was concerned that their rights be respected. 13 It was brought out in other testimony that some officers did place tickets

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 2024

Exemption 6 shields records if disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). … Supp. 3d at 65 (“[W]hen invoking Exemption 7(C), an agency need not establish much more than the fact of disclosure to establish foreseeable harm.”).