Case law

United States v. Terrell

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2023

DISCUSSION The Court concludes that the evidence presented by the Government in its briefing clearly requires Defendant Terrell’s detention pending trial. A. … The alleged offenses are clearly crimes of violence. See, e.g., United States v. Krol, 642 F.

Van EE v. Environmental Protection Agency

55 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 1999

This clearly is acting as an “agent.” See Refine Constr. Co. v. … Circuit found that the challenged regulations “clearly prevented]” employees from addressing certain issues, “proscribing a broad category of speech,” and that the Pickering balancing test clearly was applicable.

Hunter v. District of Columbia Government

905 F. Supp. 2d 364 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 29, 2012

Only then will the district judge review the magistrate judge’s decision under a clearly erroneous standard. LCvR 72.2(c). … “[O]pposition to an unlawful employment practice qualifies as protected activity even if it may have occurred outside of the EEO context.” Rattigan v. Gonzales, 503 F.

Schroer v. Billington

424 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2006

She was highly qualified for the position. Schroer is a twenty-five year veteran of the U.S. … Neither the logic nor the language of Price Waterhouse establishes a cause of action for sex discrimination in every case of sex stereotyping, however.

Herbert v. Architect of the Capitol

766 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2011

Williams’ proposal clearly stated that it was non-final and that Tiscione had the authority to modify the decision. Id. … Even if this were not the case, the job description clearly contemplates that Herbert would "[p]erform[] other duties as assigned.” Id. 7 .

Amfac Resorts, LLC v. US DEPT. OF INTERIOR

142 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2001

To the contrary, the provisions state quite clearly the conditions under which the concessioners' duties will change. … Clearly, under the standard concession contract, the NPS cannot terminate the contract at its pleasure. F.

United States v. Ganeous

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 2024

Performance qualifies as deficient if counsel’s “repre- sentation fell below an objective standard of reasonableness.” United States v. Davis, No. 18-cv- 26 (TJK), 2024 WL 4253186, at *2 (D.D.C. … To take just two examples, she does not clearly specify what evidence should have been sup- pressed, nor does she point to any facts suggesting that a buyer-seller defense would have been viable.

Hammon v. Barry

752 F. Supp. 1087 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 13, 1990

Civ.P. 23(c)(3), since this lawsuit is clearly a Rule 23(b)(2) type of class action and properly has been treated as such throughout this litigation. … on_ (fill in date) OR (c)I took the 1980 hiring examination to qualify for employment as a D.C. firefighter.

United States v. Cisneros

26 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 1998

On November 27 and 28, 1995, Medlar entered into an immunity agreement with the Office of the Independent Counsel. … Given the Banking Committee’s established jurisdiction to consider nominees for HUD Secretary, and the acts taken by the committee in coordination with the transition from one administration to another, this inquiry clearly

Moore v. Ashcroft

401 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2005

actions sufficient to establish a prima facie case. … Circuit has explained, [T]he burden of establishing a prima facie case is ‘not onerous.’

Aguirre v. Securities and Exchange Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2009

Supp. 2d 331, 339 (D.D.C. 2006)) (holding that “statements clearly speak[ing] only to plaintiff's job performance” were insufficient to state a reputation-plus claim). … The Report clearly contains plaintiff’s name and describes him, his history at the SEC and details related to his termination.

Federal Trade Commission v. paddle.com Market Limited

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 2025

Failing to Clearly and Conspicuously disclose all material terms and conditions of an offer; 4. … prescribed under this chapter shall be (B) solicits the purchase of such goods or subject to the penalties and entitled to the services on the Internet through an initial privileges and immunities

Halcomb v. Woods

610 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2009

Liability “clearly does not extend to mere insults, indignities, threats, annoyances, petty oppressions, or other trivialities.” Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46 cmt. d (1965) (“Restatement”). … Halcomb with a man would be sufficient to establish extreme and outrageous conduct.” Id. at 10.

Jovanovic v. US-Algeria Business Council

561 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2008

Rodriguez-Roman is thus clearly distinguishable from the instant case, because here the District of New Jersey did decide to dismiss Plaintiffs case. … Greenhill, 482 F.3d at 572 , the Court concludes that Plaintiffs fraud claim is not clearly intertwined with his defamation claim.

United States v. Puma

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2022

As discussed at length above, the term clearly encompasses Congress’ certification of the Electoral College count. … Capitol building, they did not qualify as “temporarily visiting.”

Windstead v. District of Columbia

840 F. Supp. 2d 149 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 6, 2012

I persist in that view and add that plaintiffs failed to produce anything at trial that either established that such an agreement existed or established the basis from which such an agreement could be inferred. … Since I have now concluded that the plaintiffs have failed to establish defendants’ liability, there is no reason to hold a trial on damages.

United States v. Suggs

534 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2008

United States, 333 U.S. 10, 13 , 68 S.Ct. 367 , 92 L.Ed. 436 (1948) (the odor of an illegal substance testified to by a qualified affiant “might very well be found to be evidence of a most persuasive character”)). … As he explained, his memory of the events of that day was not good given the length of time that has passed, but he clearly remembered telling Eames that he smelled an odor. 5 .

Concerned About Trident v. Schlesinger

400 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 1975

Indeed, they establish a strict standard of compliance.” 449 F.2d at 1112. … It is important to bear in mind that all duties embodied in Section 102 are qualified by the phrase “to the fullest extent possible.”

Beshir v. Salazar

961 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2013

An ADEA plaintiff can establish liability under Section 633a either by “mak[ing] use of the McDonnell Douglas evidentiary framework to establish that age was the but-for cause of the challenged personnel action” 6 or by … Beshir’s subjective feelings of “disrespect” do not qualify as “adverse employment action” for the purposes - 28 - of an ADEA claim. See Forkkio v.

In Re Polar Bear Endangered Species Act Listing

818 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2011

The MMPA establishes different regimes for the taking and import of marine mammals depending on the species' status. … Indeed, the MMPA clearly dictates that "no import may be made" of any marine mammal that has been designated as depleted except in narrow circumstances that do not apply here. 16 U.S.C. § 1371 (a)(3)(B).