Case law

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

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2019

And New Models did not make “any independent expenditures of its own expressly advocating the election or defeat of a clearly identified candidate.” Id. … Supp. 3d at 422 (holding that the FEC clearly requires that for any official Commission decision there must be at least a 4–2 majority vote.”).

Waggel v. George Washington University

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2018

Rather, Plaintiff must establish by a preponderance of the evidence “that (1) she was a qualified individual with a disability, (2) the [Defendant] had notice of her disability and (3) the [Defendant] denied her request … Dyer is ultimately immaterial, because Plaintiff clearly did not comply with the more substantive portion of the LOD 1 improvement plan.

United States v. H&R Block, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2011

In this case, none of these factors clearly favor transfer. … The Court also finds that the relative congestion of the transferee and transferor courts does not clearly weigh in favor of transfer.

Pharmaceutical Care Management Ass'n v. District of Columbia

605 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2009

This inquiry is “considerably simplified,” id., under ERISA because the text is “clearly expansive,” Travelers, 514 U.S. at 655 , 115 S.Ct. 1671 , in that it expressly preempts “any and all State laws insofar as they ... … And the First Circuit simply did not address whether the nature of PBM services qualified as ERISA administration. 10 .ERISA defines " 'party in interest,’ as to an employee benefit plan [as] ... a person providing services

Judge Rotenberg Educational Center, Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2019

“To qualify for the deliberative process privilege, an intra-agency memorandum must be both pre-decisional and deliberative.” Abtew, 808 F.3d at 898 (citing Coastal States Gas Corp. v. … Thus, the defendants have established chronology even without a date.

Sara Lee Corp. v. American Bakers Ass'n Retirement Plan

671 F. Supp. 2d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2009

Government that administers the pension plan insurance program established by Title IV of ERISA. 29 U.S.C. §§ 1301-1371 . … Although its 2006 Letter clearly concedes that the Plan’s foundational documents present the Plan as an aggregate of separate plans, AR 1570, it was appropriate— probably even necessary — for PBGC to look beyond that language

Naumes v. Department of the Army

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2022

The Court therefore declines to alter its prior conclusion that Park’s copyrighted GAT scales qualify as “commercial.” B. … access to Park’s work if it is ever published, which would almost certainly affect the market for it. 11  In sum, this is a case where both law and policy point clearly

Association of Private Sector Colleges and Universities v. Duncan

870 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2012

A loan would be counted as being repaid if the borrower (1) made loan payments during the most recent fiscal year that reduced the outstanding principal balance, (2) made qualifying payments on the loan under the Public … Cir. 1992) (holding that it was “clearly rational” for Congress and the Department to “solve the problem of increasing . . . defaults by eliminating schools evidencing a disproportionately large share of the defaults”

In re Sealed Case

666 F. Supp. 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 1987

SUMMARY: This rule establishes an Office of Independent Counsel: Iran/ Contra, to be headed by an Independent Counsel. … In light of the President's views, I have found it advisable to assure the courts, Congress, and the American people that this investigation will proceed in a clearly authorized and constitutionally valid form regardless

Carroll v. Fremont Investment & Loan

636 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2009

They state that Premier Mortgage required the Carrolls to provide written verification of their income, and that they understood that such verification was essential to qualifying for and obtaining the loan. … Here, the relevant provision of the DCCPPA bars making or enforcing unconscionable terms and does not clearly relate to fraud.

United States v. Conlon

481 F. Supp. 654 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 1979

The government opposed the request for particulars about the acts of negotiation because it “requests] specification of what is clearly evidentiary material.” … By contrast, the Government has contended here that a violation of section 208 may be established on the basis of general intent.

Villarreal-Dancy v. United States Department of the Air Force

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2021

Such boards operate “under procedures established by the Secretary” of the relevant military Department. Id. § 1552(a)(3)(A). … Circuit’s reading of the statute, § 1552(a)(1) “merely establish[es] a procedural requirement— 3 Because the D.C.

Cape Hatteras Access Preservation Alliance v. United States Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2010

To establish standing, plaintiffs must establish that they meet certain constitutional and prudential requirements. … At the heart of NEPA is § 4332(a)(C), which requires that a government agency prepare an environmental impact statement (EIS) whenever a proposed government action qualifies as a “major Federal action significantly affecting

United States v. Diaz-Antunuez

930 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 15, 2013

Cir. 1997) (noting that alleged juvenile delinquents “receive special rights and immunities, are shielded from publicity, are confined apart from adult criminals and are protected from certain consequences of adult conviction … Code § 11- 502(3) allows this Court to preside over proceedings involving an “offense under [ ] law applicable exclusively to the District of Columbia,” which clearly includes an alleged violation of D.C.

Policy and Research, LLC v. Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · May 11, 2018

terminated Plaintiffs’ grant funding within the meaning of the HHS 3 regulations without any explanation and in contravention of its own regulations, HHS’s action easily qualifies … Both the plain language of the regulations and the agency’s own characterization of its conduct with respect to Plaintiffs’ projects (at least at the time of the action) clearly establish that the answer is “yes.” Cf.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2026

Musk does not clearly identify the provisions in Section 13(d) and Rule 13d–1 that he believes are unconstitutional. … In those situations, the statutory provision would clearly cause harm. Id. at 259–60.

Verizon Internet Services, Inc. v. Verizon Internet Services

240 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 21, 2003

“The limitations in subsections (a) through (d) protect qualifying service providers from liability for all monetary relief for direct, vicarious and contributory [copyright] infringement.” S.Rep. … The Fourth Circuit has explained that “[t]he DMCA was enacted both to preserve copyright enforcement on the Internet and to provide immunity to service providers from copyright infringement liability for ‘passive,’ ‘automatic

United States v. Hillie

227 F. Supp. 3d 57 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2017

The indictment at issue here clearly fails to satisfy these basic constitutionally mandated principles. … insufficient a “blanket” indictment charging theft of “property” in general terms, without any description of the property, where the statute “at least mention[ed] ‘goods, wares, merchandise, securities or money’” as qualifying

Martin-Trigona v. Univ. of District of Columbia

668 F. Supp. 682 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 25, 1987

II The allocation of burdens in Title VII cases of discrimination has been clearly set forth by the Supreme Court. … Such a prima facie case is established when the plaintiff proves that (a) she belonged to a class of persons protected by Title VII, (b) she was qualified for the promotion/salary increase for which she was not selected (

Robb v. Perdue

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2021

The burden rests on the Secretary to “allege facts reasonably establishing a prima facie showing of nonexhaustion.” Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C. Cir. 1985). … Robb has conceded the futility of these claims, and clearly no longer wishes to bring them in her amended complaint. 2.