Case law

United States v. Baker

262 F. Supp. 657 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 1966

These conversations by and large are trivial and of no significance and clearly have no relevance to the matters contained in the indictment. … You should clearly understand that the newspaper, radio and television reports are not evidence. They are not to be considered by you as evidence.

Michigan Welfare Rights Organization v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2022

The Trump Defendants also moved to dismiss on the same day, bringing similar arguments for failure to state a claim and lack of standing, as well as arguments of executive immunity and lack of personal jurisdiction. … Here, the RNC argues that “Plaintiffs failed to ‘clearly ... allege’ facts supporting a real and immediate threat of future harm.” RNC’s MTD, ECF No. 24 at 13 (citing Spokeo, 136 S. Ct. at 1547).

Air Excursions LLC v. Yellen

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 12, 2022

Cir. 2016) (“A court’s determination that a plaintiff has established standing at the motion 8 Because Air Excursions establishes standing based on the below-market fares, the Court need not assess causation and redressability … The question was whether for-profit “Alaska Native regional and village corporations” qualified as “tribal governments.” Id. at 155.

Air Transport Association of America, Inc. v. Export-Import Bank of the United States

878 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 18, 2012

Because this suit is brought to protect domestic airlines’ financial interests, it clearly implicates interests germane to ATA’s purpose. … This presumption confirms that, unless a statute provides otherwise, there is no need for an agency “continually to revisit issues that may be established fairly and efficiently” through the establishment of a general

Wise v. Ferriero

999 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2013

He applied to both and believed he was the most qualified applicant from his lab. See id. … Wise thus clearly understood what he needed to do to file an administrative complaint, as he worked with Archives’ EEO Office to do just that.

United States v. District of Columbia

538 F. Supp. 2d 211 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2008

The BZA’s failure to apply clearly applicable regulations resulted in the denial of equal opportunity to use and enjoy a dwelling, in violation of Section 4604(f)(3)(B) of the Fair Housing Act. … Nothing more is required to establish the 4604(f)(3)(B) violation. California Mobile Home Park Mgmt. Co., 107 F.3d at 1380.

Okko Business Pe v. Lew

133 F. Supp. 3d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2015

Plaintiff’s arguments are tenuous and inconsistent with established sanctions law. … Matters of strategy and tactics relating to the conduct of foreign policy “are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference.” Regan v.

Zalduondo v. Aetna Life Insurance

845 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2012

Zalduondo maintaining that these physicians weren’t qualified to perform her surgery. Id. ¶ 31-32. … to establish a denial of benefits claim.

Universal Health Services of McAllen, Inc. v. Sullivan

770 F. Supp. 704 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 1991

. §§ 1395 et seq., establishes a system of health insurance for the aged and disabled. … The Court analogized such a decision to an exercise of prosecutorial discretion, involving allocations of executive branch resources which the Court is not qualified to review. Id. at 831-32 , 105 S.Ct. at 1655-56 .

Edwards v. Aurora Loan Services, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2011

Cir. 1993). 6 Plaintiffs have not established that clear intent here. … This results in uncertainty whether any particular 20 borrower can expect to qualify for a HAMP modification. That uncertainty precludes recognition 21 of a protected property interest.

Hamilton Bank, N.A. v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

227 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2001

There are clearly provisions in the Temporary Cease and Desist Order from which Hamilton has not yet sought relief from the OCC. … Focusing first on Article I, Plaintiff argues that the requirements of Article I have resulted in the rejection of qualified customers due to the fact that the requirements imposed therein exceed those im *13 posed upon any

Protect the Public's Trust v. United States Department of Energy

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2024

It is well established, though, that there are circumstances when an agency declaration may properly include hearsay. The D.C. … To determine whether disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy, courts employ a two-step test.

Center for Auto Safety v. Dole

595 F. Supp. 98 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 1984

Defendants oppose and have moved to dismiss both cases, contending that all issues raised herein are now moot in view of new regulations published June 5, 1984, which establish “final” designations of highways. 49 Fed.Reg … The first issue is whether the Center can be considered the “prevailing party” in the litigation qualifying it for attorneys fees.

Kreuzer v. American Academy of Periodontology

516 F. Supp. 1034 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 1981

Kreuzer contends that his practice, limited to periodontal prosthetics, qualifies him as a specialist in periodontology and entitled him to active membership in the AAP. … The plaintiff has therefore not established the requisite proof of an agreement in order to join ADA as a codefendant in this action.

Knowles v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2018

Plaintiff has filed a motion for the Court to take judicial notice of “a stipulated fact” that is not clearly defined. See Pet’r Requesting Court to Take Judicial Notice [Dl<t. # 24]. … Exemption 6 protects “personnel and medical files and similar files” 14 when disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6).

Cable News Network, Inc. v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2019

The Court’s conclusion that the Act is a qualifying statute whose plain language covers the Bureau’s redactions thus settles the matter. … The Archey Declaration is clearly a judicial record. In the last go-round, the Government sought leave to file this declaration in camera to bolster is motion for summary judgment. See CNN II, 293 F.

Chao v. AMALGAMATED TRANSIT UNION, AFL-CIO, CLC

141 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2001

The antidemocratic effect of the meeting-attendance requirements clearly outweigh the union’s interest in imposing them. 5 See Steekuorkers, 429 U.S. at 310 , 97 S.Ct. 611 . III. … This interest assumes that only knowledgeable and dedicated persons are qualified to act as delegates (and therefore electors).

Sonds v. Huff

391 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2005

All information that “applies to a particular individual,” qualifies for consideration under this exemption. U.S. Dep’t of State v. … Favish, 124 S.Ct. at 1581 (requiring the production of evidence that reasonably establishes government impropriety).

Zambon v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2022

Roggio The Court qualified Mr. Roggio as an expert “in the field of Middle Eastern terrorism.” Tr. … Although foreign states are generally “immune from” the jurisdiction of American courts, the FSIA provides exceptions to that immunity in “sections 1605 to 1607” of Title 28. 28 U.S.C. § 1604.

Rafeedie v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

688 F. Supp. 729 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 1988

“Courts have long recognized the power to expel or exclude aliens as a fundamental sovereign attribute exercised by the Government’s political departments largely immune from judicial control.” Shaughnessy v. … In contrast, a nonresident alien bears the burden of establishing his right to enter the United States. 8 U.S.C. § 1361 . 18 .