Case law

NMI Systems, Inc. v. Pillard (In Re NMI Systems, Inc.)

179 B.R. 357 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 1995

But the title was clearly that of an assistant vice president, because Pillard’s immediate superior was now a divisional vice president, Knowles. … Bonuses are paid by well established companies in the industry on a monthly, quarterly or yearly basis.

Harvey v. Mohammed

841 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2012

The record clearly establishes that the District failed to fulfill its duty to monitor Symbral’s care of Mr. Suggs, and that this breach caused Mr. Suggs harm. In 1994, the IHP for Mr. Suggs reported that Mr. … The guidelines detailed in the regulations were clearly enacted to protect the health, welfare, and safety of residents such as Mr.

Baker v. Spath

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 18, 2018

The lone remaining defense attomey, Lieutenant Alaric Piette, does not qualify as learned counsel in capital cases and is not qualified to serve as the sole counsel in capital cases under the Military Commissions Act of 2009 … Chapter 47A clearly distinguishes between military judges and members of military commissions The requirements for service as a member on a military commission are found in § 948i.

Viola v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2022

Plaintiff has not established that his case meets any of those criteria. … And he continues to make assertions and arguments that are clearly inconsistent with or unsupported by the evidence he proffers.

Vista Healthplan, Inc. v. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co.

266 F. Supp. 2d 44 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2003

Whether or not Final Approval of this settlement has occurred, and whether or not the Escrow Account qualifies as a qualified settlement fund within the meaning of Treas. … Whether or not Final Approval of this settlement has occurred, and whether or not the Escrow Account qualifies as a qualified settlement fund within the meaning of Treas.

National Federation of Federal Employees v. United States

688 F. Supp. 671 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 1988

Under Goldwater , such a claim is clearly inadequate to confer standing. … If by “discrete” plaintiffs mean identifiable or enumerated, their characterization of this case and section 630 may be correct, but the fact that provisions of section 630 are clearly stated does not immunize it from constitutional

Hartman v. Duffey

8 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 1998

Money is “available to” the government at the rate of interest established by the sale of Treasury bills. … The grounds for the Special Master’s decision are clearly correct: 1) Judge Richey’s remedial order unambiguously stated that each prevailing plaintiff was entitled to back pay measured from the date of judgment: “In keeping

AMERICAN NURSES ASS'N v. Leavitt

593 F. Supp. 2d 126 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2009

The Medicare Act requires the Secretary to enter into agreements with states to determine whether institutions in that state qualify as hospitals within the meaning of the Act, and to the extent the Secretary finds it appropriate … Finally, plaintiffs contend that their injuries would be redressed by a favorable court decision requiring HHS to establish a system to ensure that the Joint Commission standards are at least equivalent to those established

Ford Motor Company v. Coleman

402 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 1975

There clearly is room for the court to set a substantially lower figure. … Congress can constitutionally penalize such challenges, particularly where the public interest in safety demands prompt corrective action, as long as manufacturers can obtain an expedited hearing at which they can petition for immunity

United States Ex Rel. Miller v. Bill Harbert International Construction, Inc.

786 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2011

See Straus, 590 F.3d at 901 (including “judicial pronouncement ... accompanied by judicial relief’ among requirements to qualify as “prevailing party”). … And where the pursuit of multiple claims inflates the total hours beyond what is reasonable for the litigation, a reduction is clearly appropriate.

Mack v. Aspen of D.C., Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 2018

T he termination of Mack’s event coordinator position, by contrast, may qualify as a materially adverse employment action. … “quite clearly confines itself to minimum wage issues”). Accordingly, l\/lack’s claim under D.C. Code § 32-1012 fails as well as a motion for Rule 56(d) reliefand Rule 56(h) sanctions See Pl.’s Rule 56 l\/lot.

Adamski v. McHugh

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2015

Prudential Administrative Exhaustion Principles May Apply Here It “is well established in the jurisprudence of administrative law[,]” McKart v. … But where Congress has not 15 clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs.” (citations omitted)).

35 State Street Hotel Partners, LLC v. Guzman

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2025

Accordingly, the regulations permit loan applicants to apply either to a qualified private lender or to SBA directly. See 13 C.F.R. § 120.190. … Rather than create a loan program from scratch, the CARES Act established the PPP as a temporary amendment to § 7(a) of the Small Business Act.

Livnat v. Palestinian Authority

82 F. Supp. 3d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2015

Supp. 2d 38 (D.D.C. 2000), involved a constitutional challenge to the state sponsored terrorism exception to the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”). See id. at 53. … These connections are not enough to establish specific jurisdiction over this claim.

Price v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2020

Exemption 6 permits the withholding of “personnel and medical files and similar files” where their disclosure “would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). … Price contends that these evidentiary procedures do not qualify as “investigative techniques” within the meaning of Exemption 7(E). Pl. Cross-Mot. 22–23.

Medinatura v. Food and Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 23, 2020

And the FDA was particularly concerned about homeopathic drugs that “were being offered for clearly health fraud conditions, cure your cancer, fix your broken leg.” Id. at 264. … Established Name: The product must be in conformance with Section 502(e)(1) of the Act and must bear an established name in accord with Section 502(e)(3) of the Act and 21 CFR 201.10.

Appleton v. Food & Drug Administration

451 F. Supp. 2d 129 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2006

To invoke the deliberate-process privilege, the defendants must establish two prerequisites. Id. … While this phrase does appear in Public Citizen, the plaintiff takes this phrase out of context, wholly ignoring the antecedent qualifying language.

Role Models America, Inc. v. White

193 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2002

Under the BCA, however, the notice criteria clearly calls for the notice’s publication in the Federal Register and a newspaper of general circulation. See 10 U.S.C. § 2905 (7)(B)(IV)(ñ). … Relief saving one party from irreparable injury, at the expense of similar harm caused to another, might not qualify as the equitable judgment that an injunction represents. See id. at 925 .

Center for Biological Diversity v. Gutierrez

451 F. Supp. 2d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2006

A submission that does not do that does not even qualify as a Vaughn index.” Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted). … Exemption 6 covers "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6). 4 .

Green v. Commissioner of Social Security

District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2024

G.’s medical record did not establish that her migraines occurred in a frequency and type that satisfied the Listing criteria. … Listing 1.04’s criteria required that a claimant establish: 14 Listing 1.15. See AR 19. Ms.