Case law

Taylor v. U.S. Department of Justice

257 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2003

declaration, in conjunction with the annotated copies of the 190 redacted pages that were produced to plaintiff, provide a sufficient basis for the Court to ascertain whether the redactions were legally appropriate and therefore qualify … However, it is well established that "[t]he fact that the requestor might be able to figure out some or all of the individuals’ identities through other means, or the fact that their identities have already been disclosed

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

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2022

Cir. 1998) (“The agency must establish what deliberative process is involved, and the role played by the documents in issue in the course of that process.”)). … However, the Department’s declarations clearly indicate that the Department is now basing its withholding solely on Exemption 5.

Sanofi-Aventis v. Food and Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2010

A “genuine issue” is one whose resolution could establish an element of a claim or defense and, therefore, affect the outcome of the action. … Cir. 1995) (holding that if the plain language of the statute is clear, the court need not inquire further into its meaning, at least in the absence of “a clearly expressed legislative intent to the contrary”) (quoting

Capital Area Immigrants' Rights Coalition v. U.S. Department of Justice

264 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 2003

For example, the Department expects that a clearly untimely appeal can be dispatched promptly by a Board member under the streamlining process. … The regulation further established that the standard of review for questions of fact shall be “clearly erroneous,” but for all other questions, including questions of law, the standard of review would remain “de novo.”

Slinski v. Bank of America, N.A.

981 F. Supp. 2d 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2013

When she submitted her contract with Freddie Mac, the bank informed her that she was not qualified for a loan to purchase the condominium and would require a cosigner. … For the reasons discussed above, the defense is not obvious, and so the court must reject Freddie Mac’s argument that damages are clearly barred by prior breach. c.

Haeri Mehneh v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2024

“Granting or refusing a visa to [a plaintiff] who has been interviewed is clearly a discrete agency action . . . required by both the APA and the Department’s own regulation.” Khazaei v. … In their opposition, Plaintiffs reference other start dates for counting the delay: when Nejat became documentarily qualified on April 28, 2022, amounting to twenty-eight months, see Pls.’

American Civil Liberties Union v. United States Department of Homeland Security

738 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2010

CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1100, 1103-05 (D.C.Cir.1983) (indicating that the agency may establish reasonable cut-off date for its FOIA search). … It is readily apparent that the records withheld by the defendants based on Exemption 7(C) qualify as law enforcement records.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. 7,360 Square Feet of Land

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 2022

As such, defendants’ conclusory denials in their Answer 12 provide little to no understanding of the basis for their position and therefore fail to qualify as “objections … Dico, Inc., 266 F.3d 864, 880 (8th Cir. 2001) (affirming the striking of defense where plaintiff’s taking was clearly authorized by federal statute).

American Immigration Council v. U.S. Customs and Border Protection

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 3, 2023

The party invoking the privilege must establish that the record is both predecisional and deliberative. See Prop. of the People, 330 F. Supp. 3d at 382. … Finally, although Defendants aver that this issue paper was a draft, “drafts must also be deliberative in content” to qualify for the deliberative process privilege, and this draft is not. Reps. Comm., 3 F.4th at 367.

Tax Analysts v. United States Department of Justice

913 F. Supp. 599 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 1996

The court has jurisdiction only if the plaintiff establishes that an agency has (1) improperly (2) withheld (3) agency records. Kissinger v. … If the West license applies only to “proprietary” data, then DOJ clearly controlled the “non-proprietary” data and it is fully disclosable as an “¿gency record” under FOIA.

United States v. Childress

746 F. Supp. 1122 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 1990

Clearly, the prosecutor did not exercise his best judgment in relying upon this rhetorical device. … “Irvin, establishes ‘a common-sense standard’ of juror qualification.” Halde-man, 559 F.2d at 60 .

Nacs v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

958 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2013

Once the Board establishes this interchange transaction fee standard, Congress authorizes the Board to adjust the fee to allow for fraud-prevention costs, provided the issuer complies with standards established by the Board … The non-restrictive pronoun "which" is a descriptor, rather than a qualifier, and Congress has repeatedly utilized this term to further describe the preceding phrase-here, "other costs"-rather than to condition or limit

Wilcox v. Georgetown University

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 2019

CREF stands for College Retirement Equities Fund, which TIAA established in 1952. Defs.’ Mem. at 7 n.13. … Measured by these standards, Plaintiffs clearly cannot allege an individual violation of ERISA as to the Vanguard funds, which is an investment option neither Plaintiff selected.

Imapizza, LLC v. at Pizza Limited

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2021

“A claim under the Copyright Act is objectively unreasonable if it is clearly without merit or otherwise patently devoid of legal or factual basis.” Prunty v. Vivendi, 195 F. … Cir. 1985) (“[I]n obtaining dismissal of the proceeding [for improper venue], [defendants] qualify as ‘prevailing parties’ under the Lanham Act fee award provision.”).

Building Services Co. v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

305 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2004

The services BSC was obligated to provide are clearly listed in the parties’ agreement. In addition, the days and times when the cleaning service were to be performed were also set forth in the agreement. Ms. … Pursuant District of Columbia law, 13 “[t]o establish a promissory estoppel claim, the plaintiff!

United States v. Cotton

760 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 2011

A “trend” of “virtually the entire sex offender population” attempting to evade SORNA registration, or a “frightening and high” risk of recidivism for sex offenders might well qualify as an emergency” and thus establish good … SORNA’s goal—to “establish!!

Shapiro, Lifschitz & Schram, P.C. v. R.E. Hazard

90 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2000

This Circuit has established a two-prong test for determining whether the court should disregard the corporate veil. … Kenyon Report at 10. 8 He states that “[t]he frequency, volume, and materiality of intercompany exchanges and commingling of assets, as shown by then-accounting records, clearly establishes that the two companies were essentially

USA v. Smith

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2023

Circuit established Benbow’s testimony could not have presented a Bruton problem and counsel’s arguments to the contrary were clearly incorrect at the time. … The deficiency is most clearly shown at the time of the opening statement in the case.

Teltschik v. Williams & Jensen, Pllc

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 2010

Supp. 2d 66, 72 (D.D.C. 2007) (“It is well established in the D.C. … Cir. 2006) (holding that for purposes of applying the Erie doctrine, D.C. law qualifies as state law (citing Lee v. Flintkote Co., 593 F.2d 1275, 1279 n.14 (D.C.

American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2018

By contrast, Defendants employ an analysis that is akin to verbal jujitsu: their first move is to contend that the President can certainly issue executive orders that qualify as “government-wide rules” (Defs.’ … Circuit concluded that an OMB circular directing agencies in the exercise of their prerogatives under the management rights section of the FSLMRS qualified as a government-wide rule under section 7117.