Case law

Carter-Frost v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2018

Lateral transfers, as here, qualify as adverse employment actions only when the reassignment carries with it “significantly different responsibilities.” Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360, 364 (D.C. … True, but clearly it cannot make this argument for the second detail to the Fifth District. Id. at 12.

Washington Legal Foundation v. Friedman

13 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 1998

Similarly, restaurants frequently encourage patronage through promoting favorable magazine reviews — and even go so far as to prepare reprints of these reviews to display in the windows of the establishment. … See 62 Fed.Reg. at 64079 (instead remarking that they were “clearly potentially misleading”).

Koloa Rum Company v. Noem

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 2026

At bottom, Plaintiff has established causation at this stage. … To hold that constitutional challenges must be brought within six years of a statute’s enactment would effectively immunize legislation such as the Jones Act.

Taotao USA, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2022

Even if genuine ambiguity is established, “the agency’s reading must still be ‘reasonable.’ … The waiver set clear terms for what would qualify as “substantially similar” violations.

Evans v. Fenty

701 F. Supp. 2d 126 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 7, 2010

It is well-established that a Court can modify or vacate a consent decree based on a significant change in law. … Mem. at 38), which is clearly an important development in this case given the often inadequate and transitory nature of management over the last 30 years.

Moses v. Walker

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2009

Supp. 2d 12, 33 (D.D.C. 2005) (reiterating the well-established proposition that exhaustion of administrative remedies is a prerequisite to filing under the ADEA). … As a preliminary matter, it is far from clear that the briefing on defendants’ motions to dismiss qualify as material to be stricken from the record under Rule 12.

Hourani v. Psybersolutions LLC

164 F. Supp. 3d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2016

Subsection (a)(3) did not permit personal 5 Subsection (b) of § 13-423 qualifies the reach of the statute by noting that “[w]hen jurisdiction over a person is based solely upon this section, only a claim for relief arising … Blair and PsyberSolutions owned the IP address used to establish the websites and that website’s server is in the District of Columbia do not establish Thomson or McCarthy’s contacts with, or conduct in, the District.

Institute for Justice v. Internal Revenue Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2018

But the IRS has abundantly established that other formats proved unobtainable. Mr. … As to the Program Area and SEACATS Number columns, the IRS easily establishes the applicability of Exemption 7(C). Mr.

Al-Hawsawi v. Biden

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2022

Protected Information and Documents 35. 36. 37. 38. 39, Should government counsel in this case wish to have the Court deem any document or information “protected,” government counsel shall disclose the information to qualified … The outside of the envelope or mailer for incoming legal mail shall be labeled clearly with the following annotation: “Attorney-Detainee Materials-For Mail Delivery to Detainee.”

Battle Born Investments Company, LLC v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 30, 2024

Exemption 6 protects “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). … These well-established concerns are sufficient to demonstrate a privacy interest in withholding Individual X’s name.

Asylumworks v. Wolf

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2023

EAJA authorizes fee awards to parties prevailing against the United States “and thus amounts to a partial waiver of sovereign immunity.” Ardestani v. INS, 502 U.S. 129, 137 (1991). … Defendants’ actions both before and during the litigation were not in bad faith because the law regarding Wolf’s appointment as Acting Secretary was not clearly settled law at the time the challenged rules were enacted,

Burdick v. Burdick

33 F. Supp. 921 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 1940

Of course, no British statutes were “in force” in Maryland in 1801 nor had any been in force, legally or literally speaking, since 1783, the date of the treaty establishing the independence of the Colonies, or probably since … their sound discretion in holding and disposing of securities received by them as a result of reorganization proceedings of corporations in which the testator held securities . although such reorganization securities do not qualify

Becker v. the Weinberg Group, Inc.

554 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 2008

Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424, 446 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 , 76 L.Ed.2d 40 (1983), which established a presumption that attorneys’ fees should be awarded to a prevailing party absent exceptional circumstances. … It is because of this complex scenario that it is very hard to clearly identify a “winning” and “losing” party. Plaintiff, Dr.

Bergdahl v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2024

Cir. 2004)), such motions are “disfavored[,]” and the moving party bears the burden of establishing “extraordinary circumstances” warranting relief from a final judgment, Niedermeier v. Off. of Max S. Baucus, 153 F. … To qualify as clear error, the “final judgment must be ‘dead wrong[.]’” Lardner v. Fed. Bureau of Investigation, 875 F.

Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2019

Regardless of the myriad policy reasons that might support or oppose the result here, Congress spoke clearly enough in the text of the FVRA. … The Coalition relies primarily on Lucia, in which the Supreme Court explained that “an individual must occupy a ‘continuing’ position established by law to qualify as an officer.” Lucia, 138 S. Ct. at 2051.

Dilorenzo v. Norton

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2009

Indeed, ePlus's public disclosures are clearly a driving force behind plaintiffs allegations that backdating occurred at the company. … Ryan, 918 A.2d at 355-56 ("Backdating options qualifies as one of those 'rare cases [in which] a transaction may be so egregious on its face that board approval cannot meet the test of business judgment, and a substantial

Jones v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2019

Probs. 187, 205-06 (1984) (“Many of the fee award statutes are clearly intended to tip the litigation balance to compensate somewhat for the inordinately unequal economic status of disputants.”). … As result, the Court plays a significant de facto role in establishing the customary, “prevailing” rate for IDEA cases.

Elzeneiny v. District of Columbia

195 F. Supp. 3d 207 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2016

Despite the District’s simple explanation, however, the record does not clearly reflect that Plaintiff sought FMLA leave all the way to May 10, 2011. … The Court thus looks to see whether the three acts mentioned above so qualify.

Stafford v. George Washington University

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2022

The resulting statute provides a broad cause of action to recover against “the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution and laws” committed by those acting under color of state law … A reasonable jury could conclude that doing nothing in the face of such a report is clearly unreasonable. See Doe v. Pawtucket Sch.

Green Oceans v. United States Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2025

To establish standing, these plaintiffs must also allege causation and redressability. For the four plaintiffs identified, these elements are established. … Should Plaintiffs seek further amendment of their pleadings, as indicated in their Opposition, see Opp’n at 45, the Court admonishes Plaintiffs make every effort to clearly establish standing by tying the injuries to the