Case law

Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia

161 F. Supp. 3d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2015

In contrast, Plaintiff has argued quite clearly that the drug-testing program was capable of being more “narrowly tailored.” … While the Court agrees that “difficulty of traversing stairs” almost certainly does not qualify as a disability under the ADA, see Am.

Baird v. Snowbarger

744 F. Supp. 2d 279 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2010

It is also worth noting that each underlying event plaintiff complained of was a minor, trivial annoyance, and such “sporadic verbal altercations or disagreements do not [themselves] qualify as ad *293 verse actions for purposes … “An employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor annoyances that often take place at work and that all employees experience.”

Barouch v. United States Department of Justice

87 F. Supp. 3d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

But the ATF Special Agent’s affidavit is not necessary to establish the adequacy of ATF’s search because the Boucher declaration suffices. … The criminal investigation of plaintiff plainly qualifies as law enforcement activity, and so the threshold requirement of Exemption 7 is met.

Scenic America, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation

49 F. Supp. 3d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 2014

The Mine Safety and Health Administration subsequently issued three letters specifying what kinds of x-ray results qualified as “diagnoses.” See id. at 1108, 1112. The D.C. … Under this rubric, the 2007 Guidance is clearly an interpretative rule.

Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

567 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 1983

Such an allocation is clearly required by the express terms of the Stipulation of Compromise Settlement. … In re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation, 89 F.R.D. 695 (D.D.C.), aff’d 672 F.2d 897 (D.C.Cir.1981). 37 .

United Farm Workers v. Chao

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2010

The DOL also established a four-level system for the calculating AEWRs based on the skill level of the particular job. Id. at 77,176-77. … The defendants retort that the preamble to the December 2008 Rule clearly explains why the DOL believed that the OES data was superior under the circumstances and explained its rejection of alternative methods.

Brookens v. Gamble

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2020

—as bases for jurisdiction, but it does not clearly state which claims arise under which statute. Compl. ¶ 3. … The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction. Knapp Med. Ctr. v. Hargan, 875 F.3d 1125, 1128 (D.C. Cir. 2017).

UNROW HUMAN RIGHTS IMPACT LITIGATION CLINIC, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF STATE, Et Al., Defendants

134 F. Supp. 3d 263 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2015

Surely, if State had intended to convey that the responsive document was identical to UNROW’s attached copy of The Guardian document, it could have done so more clearly. … Put another way, if the government’s affidavits themselves demonstrate that the document at issue qualifies for a FOIA Exemption, then this Court should not proceed further.

Zelaya v. UNICCO Service Co.

733 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2010

As previously established, plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of retaliation by demonstrating that 1) she was part of a protected class; 2) suffered a materially adverse action, and; 3) the adverse action is causally … This argument is unavailing, however, given that 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-2 explains in great detail the sorts of actions that qualify as ‘unlawful employment practices' and includes among such practices numerous discrete acts.”

Hall & Associates v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2018

Circuit have together established that Exemption 5’s protection from disclosure does not apply in certain circumstances. … This language clearly indicated that the EPA was not committing to applying the Eighth Circuit’s holding nationwide.

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Justice

321 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 10, 2004

This italicized language “clearly indicates that judicial review is appropriate at either of two moments: when the agency has denied a request for expedited processing, or when the agency has, upon administrative appeal, … See Al-Fayed, 254 F.3d at 309 (as long as one of the plaintiffs qualifies as an entity "primarily engaged in disseminating information,” the requirement is satisfied).

Williams v. Johnson

174 F. Supp. 3d 336 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2016

Catania moved to quash the subpoenas on the grounds that he had absolute immunity as a result of the District’s Speech or Debate statute. Id. at 112. … Clearly, the District has every right to litigate zealously. But here, where the D.C.

Bevard v. Bevard

103 F. Supp. 533 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 1952

At the time William qualified, the estate included real property valued at $7,500 and personal property estimated at $27,500. No inventory of the estate was required to be filed and none was filed. … It is the plaintiff’s contention that his establishment of the fact of the fiduciary position of William as executor of Katherine’s estate and the fact that he received funds as such fiduciary, makes out a prima facie case

A-J Marine, Inc. v. Corfu Contractors, Inc.

810 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2011

The Court also sought 5 “It is well established in the District of Columbia that ‘[a] plaintiff must put on expert testimony to establish what the standard of care is if the subject in question is so … Supp. 2d at 9 (“To be sure, for a court to conclude that a corporate entity ratified an unauthorized act, the intent must be clearly established and will not be inferred from doubtful or equivocal acts or language.”)

Fitts v. Federal National Mortgage Ass'n

77 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 1999

The inclusion of such qualifiers is not necessary for a reasonable person to conclude that satisfactory proof is what is required. … That assessment clearly partakes of discretion.

National Ass'n of Home Builders v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

311 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2004

Moreover, we are not aware of, nor have commenters suggested, a sound technical or legal basis on which to establish brightline quantifiable limits on such factors. … Certain wetlands qualify as "waters of the United States.” United States v. Riverside Bayview Homes, Inc., 474 U.S. 121, 133 , 106 S.Ct. 455 , 88 L.Ed.2d 419 (1985); see also Solid Waste Agency of N. Cook County v.

Democracy Forward Foundation v. Office of Management and Budget

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2025

And critically, Democracy Forward has not established either likelihood of success on the merits or irreparable harm. … That would “disadvantage those requestors who do qualify for expedition, because prioritizing all requests would effectively prioritize none.” See id.

Mercy General Hospital v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2019

(4) Sound business judgment established that there was no likelihood of recovery at any time in the future. Id. … [and] they were not validated, certified[,] or adopted as State documents and do not qualify as State remittance advices.” AR at 18.

United States v. Harrington

741 F. Supp. 968 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 1990

Streater were “experts in the field of addiction to controlled substances and qualified to give expert opinions on whether Kelvin Harrington was such an addict when he was arrested ... and what his present chances are for … Chambers found Harrington to be “compliant, cooperative and polite,” but upset at being taken away from “his intense drug rehabilitation program at Lorton which is clearly quite important to him.” Letter of Dr.

Jane Doe 1 v. Georgetown Synagogue-Kesher Israel Congregation

118 F. Supp. 3d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 2015

Co., 771 F.3d 1257, 1262 (10th Cir. 2014) (“CAFA places the burden on removing parties to establish that its basic requirements are met.”). … The Doe 1 plaintiffs also dispute whether defendants have established that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million. A.