Case law

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.

Gutierrez v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2019

Supp. 2d 119, 126 (D.D.C. 2010) (“A mootness issue quite clearly can 6 On June 25, 2019, the Court issued a show cause order requiring Ms. D. and Ms. … The Court’s own review of the record makes clear that plaintiffs cannot qualify for the voluntary cessation exception.

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

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.

Dowd v. Calabrese

577 F. Supp. 238 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 1983

I The Court of Appeals for this Circuit first recognized a qualified reporter’s privilege under the First Amendment in Carey v. Hume, 492 F.2d 631 (D.C.Cir.1974). … could establish the absence of malice or recklessness by the publisher of the article, they must be pursued first, and compelled disclosure of confidential sources should be denied”).

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2025

Because the commissioners’ failure to explain their votes was clearly unlawful, and the FEC has not justified departing from the path laid by the statute, the Court will grant CREW’s motion for summary judgment, declare … It offers no case holding that the administrative record is a “disclosure” or that producing it qualifies as providing “discovery” as those terms are used in the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

Durrani v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2009

Also by letter dated September 11, 2006, plaintiff requested from CBP documents “that clearly show that [seized jet] Engines were imported by S & S Turbine. . . .” Id., Ex. 2. … Cir. 1999) (requiring the court to make a finding as to whether defendant properly withheld documents in their entirety). 9 the issue,” or “(B) establishes particular criteria

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.

Colley v. James

254 F. Supp. 3d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 15, 2017

Pursuant to federal law, all JROTC instructors “must be certified by the Secretary” of that branch “as a qualified instructor” in areas such as leadership, civics and ROTC related topics. 10 U.S.C. § 2033(a). … Plaintiffs acknowledge that in 2014, upon returning from spring break, they saw an email—containing the subject line “ADPE Missed Suspense”—but they believed the email did not apply to them, even though it clearly stated

Nortel Networks, Inc. v. Gold & Appel Transfer, S.A.

298 F. Supp. 2d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2004

However, whether undisputed or clearly established facts constitute waiver may, like countless other factual issues posed in litigation, be a question appropriate for summary resolution. See Word v. … The April agreement Nortel’s status as a beneficiary of the July agreement is established by a specific provision of that agreement.

Nippon Shinyaku Co., Ltd. v. Kappos

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2019

required 5 Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.322, “[t]he Director may issue a certificate of correction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 254 to correct a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Office, which mistake is clearly … Two of the patents at issue there did not qualify for the USPTO’s Interim Procedure because they were issued before August 5, 2009. Id. at 1376.

Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Food & Drug Administration

997 F. Supp. 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1998

The provision states: The exemptions established in this subpart shall apply to all Food and Drug Adminis *67 tration records, except as provided in sub-part E of this part. … See also 57 Fed.Reg. 17950, 17971 (1992) (“Thus the statute clearly favors disclosure of safety and effectiveness data except in limited situations.”)

United States Securities and Exchange Commission v. Brown

942 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2013

Prince’s Activities Did Not Include Performing Policy Making Functions As discussed above, the Regulations set out several categories of individuals who qualify … However, the Court identified seven specific examples, spanning several years, where Prince clearly violated the Bar.

Talbot v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2018

Circuit has recognized that the “secondary effects” of a document’s release do not qualify to trigger the applicability of Exemption 6. Arieff v. U.S. Dep’t of Navy, 712 F.2d 1462, 1468 (D.C. Cir. 1983). … First, the entity that performed the investigation must qualify as a “congressional intelligence committee” or be one of the other listed entities in the statute. Id.

United States v. Conigliaro

384 F. Supp. 3d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2019

P. 29, arguing, inter alia , that because the FDA's regulatory authority over compounding pharmacies was not *148 clearly established, their conspiracy convictions were legally impossible and violated basic norms of due process … As the 2002 CPG explained: FDA believes that an increasing number of establishments with retail pharmacy licenses are engaged in manufacturing and distributing unapproved new drugs for human use in a manner that is clearly

O.A. v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2019

Cir. 2002) (“Normally 63 when an agency . . . clearly violates the APA we would vacate its action.”). … 70 well-qualified to do so.

Elkins v. Federal Aviation Administration

99 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2015

As to the first, for instance, the agency does not clearly single out the voice recordings in discussing its purposes for creating the disputed records. … In this context, preventing dam attacks and maintaining order and ensuring dam security during dam emergencies qualify as valid law enforcement purposes under the statute. . . .

Ass'n of Am. Physicians & Surgeons, Inc. v. Food & Drug Admin.

539 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2008

Although the court was addressing a provision that is not cited by plaintiffs here, that court clearly stated that the “FFDCA does not confer a broad, legally enforceable right to information.” Id. at 99 . … They explain that pharmacists are often immune from malpractice suits when they *20 correctly fill a physician’s prescription. Pis.’ Opp. at 11.