Case law

Muwekma Tribe v. Babbitt

133 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2000

In addition, obtaining federal recognition “mean[s] that the tribe is entitled to the immunities and privileges available to other federally acknowledged Indian tribes by virtue of their government-to-government relationship … The parties, however, have not proffered a clearly defined preemptory requirement in DOI’s statute, regulations or guidelines that would require DOI to con *39 duct its review of a petition within any predetermined time frame

Gay Veterans Ass'n, Inc. v. Secretary of Defense

668 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 1987

Clearly, the Congress is aware of the administrative discharge mechanism founded on 10 U.S.C. § 1169 (1), as it has qualified entitlement to various benefits upon certain discharge characterizations. … The Boards’ decisions in each case, except plaintiff Doe, indicated clearly that they reviewed plaintiffs’ applications under the more lenient, currently prevailing standards.

Sidak v. U.S. International Trade Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 2023

To establish the former, Sidak need only show that his “threatened injury is sufficiently ‘imminent’ to establish standing.” Id. at 1428. He does so easily, and the Commission does not argue otherwise. … It was in that context that the Court observed that the costs and annoyance of litigation do not qualify as irreparable harm. See 449 U.S at 243–45.

Muwekma Ohlone Tribe v. Kempthorne

452 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2006

Reply at 18 (stating that “[i]n reaching [the Final Determination regarding Muwek-ma’s tribal status], [the defendants clearly followed established procedures”) (citations omitted). … That is, in stark contrast to the facts of Hoyl , the Department here claims that it has “clearly followed established procedures” with regard to Muwekma because “groups demonstrating or alleging characteristics similar to

Sloan v. Urban Title Services, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 2010

against him, but that she has failed to provide an expert qualified to opine on these issues.11 Duncan’s [224] Reply at 4-8. … Second, the Court declines to consider at this time Duncan’s alternative argument, raised for the first time in reply, that Plaintiff’s claims fail because she cannot proffer qualified expert testimony establishing Duncan

Apprio, Inc. v. Zaccari

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2021

Nor does the third exception—for non-disclosed inventions that do not qualify as Prior Inventions— help Zaccari. … There is no genuine dispute that the CRR Software does not qualify as an “Unassigned Invention” under Paragraph 2.4.

Nixon v. United States

782 F. Supp. 634 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 1991

Finally, the Presidential library system was established. … The Court also finds that any argument that the Nixon — Sampson agreement allowed the plaintiff to establish a right is *643 also without merit.

Smith v. Contreras-Sweet

239 F. Supp. 3d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2017

Watkins was clearly instructed by Wyche—a Human Resources specialist in classification—that competition should apply to any potential promotion for Smith. … support establishes only that Jeanne Crepeau, in GCBD, applied for that position.

Felter v. Salazar

679 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2010

Mixed-bloods were defined as Ute members who did not have sufficient Ute or Indian ancestry to qualify as full-bloods. 25 U.S.C. § 677a(c). … The affirmative defense of collateral estoppel may also be raised in a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss when “the defense can either be established from the face of the complaint, matters fairly incorporated within it, and

America First Legal Foundation v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2024

FOIA’s Exemption 6 “protects ‘personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.’” Reps. … Yet, once defendants “properly asserted a privacy interest,” the law clearly places on plaintiff the burden to “establish that (1) the public interest is a significant one; and (2) the information is likely to advance that

Shook v. District of Columbia Financial Responsibility & Management Assistance Authority

964 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 1997

Despite Defendant’s attempt to characterize the situation differently, the reality is that the November Order gave the Board of Trustees “all the authority, powers, functions, duties, responsibilities, exemptions, and immunities … Plaintiffs have offered no reason to deviate from these long established rules of statutory construction.

Lucas v. Spellings

408 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2006

“This provision established an objective standard of conduct.” … Berry appear to be qualified.” Plains. Opp. MSJ at 14. Thus, the accusation against Fairley is that he purposefully corrupted the process to aid Berry.

Competitive Enterprise Institute v. Office of Science and Technology Policy

82 F. Supp. 3d 228 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2015

Not all documents in an agency's possession qualify as "records" under the FRA. … CEI clearly stated that its request would "entail[] searching jholdren@whrc.org." Id.

Stewart v. Rubin

948 F. Supp. 1077 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 1996

ATF will retain a qualified individual approved by the plaintiffs (currently, Dr. … These arguments are clearly misplaced and misunderstand the nature of the statistical inquiries involved in a class action lawsuit. 97.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People v. United States Postal Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 10, 2020

Such chronic medical conditions include “serious heart disease . . . , cancer, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, type 2 diabetes, severe obesity, chronic kidney disease, sickle cell disease, and weakened immune system … Accordingly, Plaintiff’s claim “clearly admit[s] of judicial review.” Id. at 1173. 4.

Banner Health v. Sebelius

126 F. Supp. 3d 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 2, 2015

Accordingly, an increase in the fixed loss threshold reduces the number of cases that will qualify for outlier payments, as well as the amounts of such payments for qualifying cases. … That is enough to fall within the government’s waiver of sovereign immunity.

N. v. U.S. Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2026

Plaintiffs have not established that they are likely to prevail on this point. … Family separation and prolonged detention certainly qualify as irreparable injuries. Angelica S., 786 F. Supp. 3d at 175; see also Jacinto-Castanon de Nolasco v. ICE, 319 F.

Fresenius Kabi USA, LLC v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2026

the agency’s statement that it could not—and thus would not— reach a determination on the application was the key to the court’s conclusion that the agency had given its final word on the matter: “Where an agency has clearly … “In assessing whether a particular agency action qualifies as final for purposes of judicial review, [the D.C.

Fitzgibbon v. Central Intelligence Agency

578 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 1983

as an “intelligence source” 20 or 25 years ago, he would not so qualify now. 53 Yet it does not follow that, if someone would have so qualified then — that is, if the information imparted was the type that would not have … There, the data is clearly not reasonably likely to cause harm to the national defense today, and it may be that the CIA is acting more out of a desire to prevent a politically unpalatable reaction than out of a legitimate

Pfeiffer v. Spellings

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2009

Section 1491(a)(2), however, clearly delineates the situations under which such relief “incident of and collateral to” a monetary judgment may be granted. … Cir. 1992) (“[T]he [Tucker] Act has long been construed as waiving sovereign immunity only for claims seeking damages, and not for those seeking equitable relief (except in very limited circumstances).”