Case law

Halvonik v. Dudas

398 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2005

Generally, agency officials, like judges and jurors, are immune from being called upon to testify concerning their deliberations. Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. … Alternatively, the conduct described in the Complaint clearly established a pattern of conduct that meets both tests for “willful” misconduct. See infra at § III.

Rumber v. District of Columbia

598 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2009

Georgia, 725 F.2d 622, 623 (11th Cir. 1984) (noting that “exceptions” to this “generally preferable approach” exist when a plaintiffs claim has no plausible foundation or is clearly foreclosed by Supreme Court precedent). … As the party invoking federal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing standing.

American Friends Service Committee v. Webster

485 F. Supp. 222 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 1980

The records management laws contain specific standards and directives with respect to record preservation which the administrators are required to follow, and there clearly is “law to apply.” … The grant of such relief will serve not merely the technical function of compelling compliance with the various records management laws; it will guarantee that records will not be destroyed until qualified historians and

Missouri ex rel. Missouri-St. Louis Metropolitan Airport Authority v. Coleman

427 F. Supp. 1252 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 1977

The standard upon which this Court must judge a motion for preliminary injunction is that established by the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia in Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Association v. … Clearly, the views of those affected must be weighed.

Role Models America, Inc. v. PenMar Development Corp.

394 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2005

With respect to the additional requirements for Role Models III to qualify for res judicata effect in this *130 case, there is no dispute as to whether the parties in that suit are identical or in privity with the Federal … The Court’s decision also is influenced by the well-established policy of federal courts to discourage forum shopping by plaintiffs.

Wells v. Barnhart

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2009

Legal Analysis Because the plaintiff, by all accounts, is neither blind nor aged, he must establish, inter alia, that he qualifies as “disabled” within the meaning of the Social Security Act to recover disability … Supp. 2d 26, 35 (D.D.C. 2008) (“When the evidence in the administrative record clearly generates an issue as to a particular listing and the ALJ fails to properly identify the [l]isting considered and to explain clearly the

Lemus v. Shaffner

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2023

A qualified impartial hearing officer presides over the due process hearing in accordance with the Act. Id. § 1415(f)(3). … What is more, "[t]he plain language of the law clearly does not include a requirement that the IEP determine the 'adequacy' of the IEP as part of the manifestation determination." Id.

Shalit Barrett v. Atlantic Monthly Group LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2024

Peck that the idea for the fourth child had originated with Sloane due to her fear of being identified, and that she had “nothing to gain from such an invention, whereas Sloane clearly did.” Id. Ms. … To the extent that Defendants wish to establish as a matter of fact why exactly Ms.

Mattiaccio v. Dha Group, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2019

Nov. 3, 2016) (finding that Section 641 conviction “clearly satisfie[d] Federal Rule of Evidence 609(a)(1)”). … It is unclear from the face of the statute whether a conviction under it qualifies for admission under Rule 609(a)(2).

Health Care Service Corp. v. Mylan Laboratories, Inc.

295 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2003

We do not think more is required to establish Blue Cross’s right to sue to collect these overcharges.” Id. at 1414 . … This is clearly set forth in Plaintiffs’ Complaints. Complaint* ¶¶ 36-48; Complaint ¶¶ 20-32.

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

660 F. Supp. 2d 84 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 2009

Kalos clearly indicated that Mr. Nicholas did not perceive Mr. Kalos to have the authority to contract for Corfu. Mr. Nicholas’s doubts about Mr. … Capitol Sprinkler Inspection, Inc., 627 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C.2009) (“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

United States v. Barnes

520 F. Supp. 946 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 1981

This is clearly not the situation in the case at bar. … Both of these cases also held the statements inadmissible as the statements were clearly involuntary.

National Industries for the Blind v. Department of Veterans Affairs

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 7, 2017

Despite the broad discretion afforded to the courts in granting a stay, it is well established that a stay pending the resolution of unrelated legal proceedings is an extraordinary remedy. … Thus, the balance of the harms clearly weighs in Plaintiffs’ favor vis-à-vis the government.

Protect the Public's Trust v. National Labor Relations Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2026

The government bears the burden of establishing that the document was prepared in anticipation of litigation and thus qualifies for the privilege and the exemption under the FOIA, see Boyd, 475 F.3d at 385, which—as with … Relatedly, the plaintiff argues that because the Ethics Memo was addressed to the Members and not to the Board or litigation staff, it was clearly for the individual Members’ benefit and not the Board’s. See id.

Association of Washington Business v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 2024

Supp. 2d 5, 11 (D.D.C. 2007) (applying this presumption when a plaintiff “has its headquarters in the District of Columbia[] and is thus clearly a resident of this District”). … “[C]ertain harms . . . such as . . . monetary harms” will “readily qualify” under this test. Id. And it is well established that the loss of a single dollar is a concrete harm for which a party may seek redress.

In Re Davis

275 B.R. 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2002

Clearly, the phrase “having an insurable interest therein” refers to the beneficiary having such an interest in the life of the person insured. … The cash surrender value of the life insurance policy is property of the estate as of the petition date, subject to a qualified exemption from that estate under District of Columbia law, the property being exempt only so

Robb v. Vilsack

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2025

‘opposed any practice’ prohibited” by the statute and “provide[s] only qualified protection against retaliation,” Egei, 192 F. … Accordingly, whether the participation clause provides the kind of sweeping immunity Plaintiff implies, the opposition clause, which is the source of any protection Plaintiff’s communications enjoy, cer- tainly does not

Edelman v. Securities and Exchange Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2018

But, given the Court’s conclusion that the risk of retaliation and harassment is sufficient to establish a substantial privacy interest, the Court need not rely on this additional basis for the SEC’s decision. … , the ESRT “filed the Form S-4 registration statement that involved a consent solicitation to approve the consolidation of several properties, including [the Empire State Building], into [the] ESRT[,] which would then qualify

Does I through III v. District of Columbia

232 F.R.D. 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2005

1235, 1247 (D.C.1990). 6 When a person is incompetent, or when the court is unable to determine the person’s competence, “the substituted judgment procedure must be followed,” id., because it is the procedure which “most clearly … Defendants do not dispute that plaintiffs’ counsel are qualified. 11 This, combined with the fact that plaintiffs’ counsel represented the successful plaintiffs in Boyd before this court, leads the court to conclude that

Hall v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2009

[it] would at best qualify for the more limited form of deference accorded under Skidmore.”) (internal citations omittted); accord Davis v. … The futility exception only applies where exhaustion would be “clearly useless,” such as where the agency “has indicated that it does not have jurisdiction over the dispute, or because it has evidenced a strong stand on