Case law

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

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.

Clemmons v. Academy for Educational Development, Inc.

107 F. Supp. 3d 100 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2015

The people who were involved with such actions have been formally addressed, very clearly and directly. As a result, it is our expectation that [Dr. … The Court did not clearly err by denying her request for an adverse inference on this basis.

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

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

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

United States v. Hasston, Inc.

195 F. Supp. 3d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2016

the Second Restatement of Contracts, the court found that the executive order and regulations governing the export of goods and services to Iran were regulatory in nature and that enforcement of the parties’ agreement was clearly … Furthermore, once it is established that Mr.

Peternel v. Buttigieg

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 28, 2023

2 (“Ex. 2”), ECF No. 11-3; Def.’s Mot. to Dismiss, Ex. 3, ECF No. 11-4. 8 most, if not all, of the factual allegations in the Amended Complaint, even those that clearly … Discrimination laws do not “set forth a general civility code for the American workplace,” and “[a]n employee’s decision to report discriminatory behavior cannot immunize that employee from those petty slights or minor

Brown v. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2018

To take advantage of this doctrine, a plaintiff must “establish[ ] that the information he seeks has entered and remains in the public domain.” Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 968 F.2d 1276, 1279 (D.C. … They are clearly privileged.

United States v. Yunis

681 F. Supp. 896 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 1988

V. § 2 states "each state shall establish jurisdiction in cases where the alleged offender is present in its territory.” 7 . … (“The nationality of the victims, who are United States government agents, clearly supports jurisdiction.") 13 .

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

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2022

Because these materials “preceded the finalization and transmission” of any letter to Congress, they “qualify as predecisional.” Judicial Watch, Inc., 20 F.4th at 55. CREW disputes this conclusion. … Courts in this district have long held that agency discussions about “how to respond to questions from Congress about matters of agency policy qualify as deliberative.” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S.

Clean Label Project Foundation v. Abbott Laboratories

District Court, District of Columbia · May 25, 2022

(“In order to establish jurisdiction, Abbott asks me to extend Rotunda’s holding to a subset of cases it did not reach. … If one mentions “John Doe, Jr.,” however, this clearly refers only to the son.

Rai Care Centers of Maryland I, LLC v. United States Office of Personnel Management

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2024

CareFirst also once denied an appeal because, it said, it accepted only “medical necessity appeals” from nonmember facilities, and this did not qualify. ECF No. 50-6 at 45. … Its ERISA argument seeks to establish that “plan terms control and must be strictly followed.” See ECF No. 39 at 29 (emphasis omitted).

Colorado Wild Public Lands v. United States Forest Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2023

Because FOIA is designed to “establish a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language,” NLRB v. … This supplemental declaration opines that the “Forest Service sometimes struggles to procure the services [of] qualified appraisers, who fear that working with the Forest Service unduly risks exposing their work product

Da'vage v. Wcs Construction Company, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2024

To be sure, Da’Vage does not clearly allege whether that superintendent failed to correct subsequent performance issues or that Jones, Da’Vage’s supervisor, was responsible for the claimed comparator. … But even if the Court were to accept that these were adverse employment actions, Da’Vage has not established that reporting COVID- 19 protocols to the Mayor’s Office is protected activity under the anti-discrimination statutes

Ali v. Pruitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2020

Vali further explained that Ali’s allergies could “lead to chronic diseases like asthma, chronic dermatitis and severe effects on the immune system,” and that “multiple medications had failed to alleviate his symptoms.” … At his deposition, Ali testified that he was more qualified for the team leader position than the person selected. (Ali Dep. 88–90; EEOC Tr. 114.)

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.

Dbw Partners, LLC v. Market Securities, L.L.C.

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2024

the answer clearly is that it cannot”) (emphasis in original). … Supp. 2d 41, 47–48 (D.D.C. 2010) (finding that three business trips to Washington, D.C. did not qualify as persistent course of conduct); Burman, 437 F.

Federal Trade Commission v. Libbey, Inc.

211 F. Supp. 2d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2002

Clearly, however, both are subject to Section 7’s prohibitions. The FTC’s argument that defendants have in some manner sought to evade FTC and judicial review by proposing the amended agreement is without merit. … Staples', 970 F.Supp. at 1082 (“any market with an HHI over 1800 qualifies as ‘highly concentrated’ ”) (quoting FTC v. PPG Indus. Inc., 798 F.2d 1500, 1503 (D.C.Cir.1986)).

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.