Case law

United States v. Seefried

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2022

Affirming judicial immunity. … immunity.

Hesai Technology Co., Ltd v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2025

. ¶¶ 112-117; and (4) that defendants’ “action [was] contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity” – specifically, Hesai’s procedural due process rights. … Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80, 94 (1943) (requiring “that the grounds upon which the administrative agency acted by [be] clearly disclosed and adequately sustained”); Department of Com. v.

Seth v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2018

a) Qualified Individual with a Disability Under the ADA and the RA, a “qualified individual with a disability” is defined as “an individual with a disability who, with or without reasonable modifications to … While acknowledging the “principle of state responsibility for the care of the mentally ill” that is “clearly outlined in the text of” the IDRA, id. at 135, the court nevertheless noted that “the government is correct that

United States v. Demirtas

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 2, 2016

And, importantly, Friedman’s Dutch counterpart neither asked her for further information nor qualified his assessment as based on incomplete information. … Bagga, 782 F.2d at 1544 (finding that the government’s conduct was “clearly no more than mere negligence” and insufficient to “tip the scale in favor of the defendant”); see also United States v. Kresler, 392 F.

Cause of Action v. Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration

70 F. Supp. 3d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2014

The court further noted that Tax Analysts did not “consider whether propositions that were neither factual nor legal qualified as ‘data.’” Id. at 1138. … Because Exemption 7(C) involves a lower threshold than the one set forth in Exemption 6, which requires a “clearly unwarranted invasion” of privacy, the Court will address Exemption 7 first.

Joyce v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol

106 F. Supp. 3d 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2015

Yet even if, as Plaintiff alleges, this somehow shows that Morey had been concerned about Joyce’s use of leave in anticipation of retirement “all along,” that concern was clearly about use of leave. … As Defendant points out, however, the shift change was in the works for at least two weeks before Joyce even gave notice of his intention to take FMLA-qualifying leave.

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

321 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 2004

Indeed, the meaning of deterrence clearly encompasses the concept of both “prevent” and “restrain.” … "The likelihood of future wrongful acts is frequently established by inferences drawn from past conduct.” United States v.

Zemiri v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2009

The right of access is qualified, however. … According to these Circuits, “[t]he public’s right of access to civil trials and records is as well established as that of criminal proceedings and records.” Publicker, 733 F.2d at 1066.

Tennant v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2023

[and] a suspension that was merely recommended but never occurred”—fail to qualify as adverse employment actions. Def.’s Mot. at 5–6. … First, although plaintiff alleges that, after the mandatory meeting on May 7, 2018, she “suffered a loss of pay resulting from being placed on AWOL, an action that clearly affected her terms and conditions of employment

Pintro v. Rosenworcel

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2021

The plaintiff further asserts that she “was interested in and clearly better qualified” for the promotions given to Julie Barrie, Jennifer Gilsenan, and Robert Tanner, “but was overlooked for these opportunities in favor … of less qualified Caucasian employees.”

Spears v. United States Department of Justice Criminal Division

139 F. Supp. 3d 79 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2015

To qualify for protection under Exemption 5 as deliberative process material, a document must be “predecisional,” i.e., “generated before the adoption of an agency policy,” and “deliberative,” i.e., reflecting “the give-and-take … Spears’s asserted 5 Exemption 6 permits an agency to withhold from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar files” if their disclosure would “constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

Humane Society of the United States v. United States Department of Agriculture

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2020

“The party invoking federal jurisdiction bears the burden of establishing these elements.” Id. at 561. … The situation at issue in Arlington Oil Mills is thus clearly distinguishable from the withdrawal of the 2017 Rule.

Johnson v. Commission on Presidential Debates

202 F. Supp. 3d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2016

Stein were each qualified on enough State ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority. Opp’n [Dkt. 45] at 8. … The Supreme Court has stated clearly and often that the First Amendment freedom of speech includes the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977).

Kidder v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

517 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2007

In this case, defendant’s “declarations must establish ... … Central Intelligence Agency, 697 F.2d 1095, 1108 (D.C.Cir.1983) (noting that the FBI "clearly [is] covered by the [Freedom of Information] Act”).

In Re: Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing and 4(d) Rule Litigation - Mdl 1993

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 2009

language in the Final Rule is not of a “merely tentative or interlocutory nature[,]” but rather represents the “‘consummation’ of the agency’s decisionmaking process” and, as that language and the July 29, 2008 letter clearly … Circuit found that in the preamble that plaintiff challenged, the agency “spoke in the conditional, suggesting that events in the various categories ‘may be exceptional events’ or ‘may qualify for exclusion under this rule

Ferguson v. Saul

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2022

Statutory and Regulatory Background “To qualify for disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income under Titles II and XVI of the [Social Security] Act, [a claimant] must establish that []he is ‘ … But “[i]f a child cannot qualify under these listings,” or his impairment does not meet the duration requirement, then “he is denied benefits.” Zebley, 493 U.S. at 526.

Alao v. District of Columbia Government Department of Health

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2025

So clearly, that discrete act cannot provide a basis for her claims. … And although Alao does not clearly connect these acts to retaliatory animus, she suggests that her em- ployer’s health-based reasons for the acts were not legitimate.

Sanders v. Obama

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2010

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e), which protects the secrecy of the grand jury, was affirmatively enacted by Congress and thus qualifies as an exempting statute pursuant to Exemption 3. See Sussman v. U.S.

State of New York v. Thomas

613 F. Supp. 1472 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 1985

The Commission, established by the Boundary Waters Treaty of 1909, United States-Canada, 36 Stat. 2448 , T.S. … However, Costle qualifies this conclusion by characterizing the reciprocity determination as a fluid and dynamic situation that is subject to change.

Federal Trade Commission v. Boehringer Ingelheim Pharmaceuticals, Inc.

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

The Court held that “[i]nformation used to assess settlement option [sic] clearly falls within the ambit of the work product doctrine.” Id. (citing Willingham v. Ashcroft, 228 F.R.D. 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2005)). … “The basis of [a] privilege must be adequately established in the record, through evidence sufficient . . . to establish the privilege . . . with reasonable certainty.”