Case law

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.

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.”

Hartline v. Astrue

605 F. Supp. 2d 194 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

Hecker “clearly contradicted” the ALJ’s conclusions as Plaintiff asserts. Pl.’s Mot. at 9. Dr. … Plaintiff fails, however, to establish that the opinions of Dr. Stein and Dr. Publicker qualify for consideration under this provision.

Capitol Speciality Insurance v. Sanford Wittels & Heisler, LLP

793 F. Supp. 2d 399 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2011

Missing a filing deadline that results in the dismissal of the class action claim could easily qualify as a breach of a professional duty. … But the Policy clearly states that there is a standard $100,000 deductible in the Policy per each claim. (Compl., Ex. A.)

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.

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 .

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).

Umc Development, LLC v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2019

These injuries fail to establish standing. … Code,” id., and difficult questions of sovereign immunity and entitlement to equitable relief, id. at 20–21.

Atlantic Urological Associates, P.A. v. Leavitt

549 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 2008

On a motion to dismiss for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject matter jurisdiction. Evans v. B.F. … A plaintiffs standing under Arti cle III of the United States Constitution must be determined first in order to establish the jurisdiction of the Court to hear the case and reach the merits. Steel Co. v.

United States v. Ross

778 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2011

Ross whose qualifying offense was committed prior to SORNA’s enactment, was issued in violation of the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). Mot. at 3. Second, Mr. … Smith set forth the established framework for analyzing a challenge under the Ex Post Facto Clause: We must ascertain whether the legislature meant the statute to establish civil proceedings....

International Union of Bricklayers & Allied Craftworkers v. Insurance Co. of the West

366 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2005

Accordingly, since a § 301 claim is between an employer and a labor organization, and ICW qualifies as neither, § 301 does not preempt the state law claim in this case. … The bond is therefore the only document which establishes the duties and obligations of ICW, and it clearly sets forth the conditions giving rise to ICW’s liability.

United States v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2022

Sept. 12, 2020) (“None of [the factors Johnson identifies,] alone or in combination, qualify as ‘extraordinary and compelling reasons’ for release under § 3582(c)(1)(A).”). … 4B1.2(b) presents a very detailed ‘definition’ of controlled substance offense that clearly excludes inchoate offenses.”); see also United States v.

Hill v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia

146 F. Supp. 3d 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 24, 2015

UDC did not give Plaintiff the opportunity to apply for any vacant positions for which he might qualify. Id. ¶ 40. … Waste, fraud, and corruption within governmental agencies “clearly are [such matters] in which the public might be interested and that relate to the public’s evaluation of the performance of governmental agencies.”

Swift v. United States

649 F. Supp. 596 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 5, 1986

Homosexual conduct may not be protected under the right of privacy, and homosexuals may not qualify as a suspect class. … In such cases, of course, the employee has lost a government job, and thus clearly can demonstrate a harm beyond damage to reputation. 4 .

Pinkney v. Astrue

675 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2009

The Social Security Act has specific requirements and a very detailed definition of disability to determine if someone qualifies for disability insurance benefits or supplemental security income payments under the act. … The ALJ stated: The medical record clearly indicates Mr. Pinkney is HIV positive and has chronic fatigue along with schizophrenia and an organic mental disorder.... Dr.

Federal Deposit Insurance v. Virginia Surety Co.

988 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 1997

Yet, the letters sent by UNB clearly referred to the possibility of director and officer liability. … VSC has failed to establish any facts to show that the APA loan problems were known .before the signing of the application on May 21, 1987.

United States v. Quinn

403 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 5, 2005

Quite the contrary, the ITR clearly state that obtaining a license “has the effect of removing a prohibition.” See 31 C.F.R. § 560.501 (c). … Even if defendants were correct that the government must establish that they had knowledge of the licensing requirement, the . outcome of their motions would be the same.

Psychas v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2019

To have a property interest in a government benefit, “a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Thus, the Court need not address defendants’ qualified immunity arguments. 35  V.

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

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2024

The court concludes that these materials qualify as work product protected under Exemption 5. These records are at the heart of the work-product privilege. … It is well established that the work-product privilege extends to materials created by an attorney’s agent. United States v.