Case law

Carroll v. Fremont Investment & Loan

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.

Royall v. NATIONAL ASS'N OF LETTER CARRIERS

507 F. Supp. 2d 93 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2007

According to Young, there were three candidates in particular for the position, including the plaintiff, who he considered equally qualified. … written job description for the accounting manager position either at the time the vacancy was advertised or at the time the plaintiff was hired, the plaintiff makes no representation that the duties were not communicated clearly

Bluewater Network v. Kempthorne

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2010

It is well established in our Circuit that “[t]his court’s review is . . . … abundance, distribution, quantity, or quality)”--such an impact, however, does not qualify as an impairment. Id. at 00116.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. US Department of Education

905 F. Supp. 2d 161 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2012

To qualify for withholding, material must be both predecisional and deliberative. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 412 F.3d 125, 129 (D.C. Cir. 2005). … The only substantive challenge advanced by CREW concerned Exemption 5 and is clearly without merit.

Pondexter-Moore v. District of Columbia Housing Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

. ¶ 67, the plaintiff states that “the security cameras clearly capture a view of the front entrance of [the plaintiff]’s . . . home[,]” id. ¶ 71, and that they “can render footage from within [the plaintiff]’s apartment … ]hen an individual ‘seeks to preserve something as private[,]’ and [her] expectation of privacy is ‘one that society is prepared to recognize as reasonable,’ . . . official intrusion into that private sphere generally qualifies

Greene v. Hense

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2019

[did] not establish the requisite . . . deliberate indifference”). … Furthermore, “the fact that measures designed to stop harassment prove later to be ineffective does not establish that the steps taken were clearly unreasonable in light of the circumstances known by [the school] at the

Dillon v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2020

Defendant’s submissions establish precisely that. What Mr. … 34 agency’s performance of its statutory duties”—to qualify).

Wolowitz v. Gulf Oil Corp.

255 F. Supp. 100 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 1966

Patent No. 2,110,854 (Defendants’ Exhibit 13) are virtually incomprehensible without the benefit of expert testimony from a qualified engineer. … Defendants have fallen far short of sustaining their statutory burden of establishing invalidity under 35 U.S.C. § 282 in this case.

Scarborough v. Harvey

493 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2007

“[I]n order to qualify as a *15 record, information must be ‘about’ an individúale,] ... [and it] must contain the individual's name or other identifying particular.” Tobey v. … The plaintiffs state that they are in need of "discovery pursuant to which they can establish the exact role Mr.

Sprint Corporation v. United States Department of Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2018

The Board rejected this argument because the cabinets “clearly house equipment” and therefore are “equipment shelter[s].” Id. at 139 (alteration in original). … Thus, BLM’s alleged delay in issuing the Trespass Notice was not “affirmative misconduct,” and Sprint has failed to meet the “high” bar for establishing equitable estoppel against the government.

Betesfa, Inc. v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2019

. § 2021, the FNS is required permanently to disqualify a retail food store from participating in the SNAP if the store has engaged in “trafficking in [SNAP] coupons or authorization cards” and if the store does not qualify … Any one of the 149 transactions is sufficient to establish a violation.”).

O.O. Ex Rel. Pabo v. District of Columbia

573 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2008

Once a child is found to qualify for a FAPE, DCPS is required to develop and implement an Individualized Education Program (“IEP”) for him or her. Id. § 1414(d)(2)(A). … While the Prior Notice from August 30, 2006 does not formally indicate that placement at Prospect was proposed, plaintiffs were clearly aware of DCPS’s placement decision.

Na'im v. Rice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2009

The plaintiff alleges that although she was certified as a qualified candidate, Thain did not recommend her for the promotion. Id. at 4 & Ex. 2 at 102-03. … As for the plaintiff’s allegations regarding the demeaning comments, the record clearly reflects that these comments began before the plaintiff filed her first EEO complaint in September 2001. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 2-3.

In the Matter of the Federal Bureau of Prisons' Execution Protocol Cases

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 12, 2021

Locher’s declaration states that Johnson exhibited no symptoms of COVID-19 on December 22 and 23, whereas the records clearly indicate Johnson reported a headache on December 22. … He qualified his statement by noting that such studies were only performed on symptomatic and hospitalized patients, although he also acknowledges that Higgs is symptomatic. Dr.

James Madison Project v. Office of Director of National Intelligence

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2024

They do not clearly explain why such “further clarity” is needed. But, charitably construed, they appear to be raising a claim that the Koch Declaration is “conclusory” under Hayden. Not so. … Plaintiffs agree that these statutes, “in and of themselves, qualify as withholding statutes.” Opp’n at 11. So the only question for the Court is whether the withheld material falls within the statutes’ coverage.

Gonda v. Donahoe

79 F. Supp. 3d 284 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2015

made errors, some of them serious. 9 Although OE analysts “are instructed on the correct formats for work product and on the importance of adhering to them so that functional components receive OE’s work product in a clearly … Gonda must identify a specific waiver of sovereign immunity to bring her FLSA claim against USPS.

Washington Blade v. United States Department of Labor

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2024

that precedes OPA’s media response” is clearly predecisional. … A document from a junior to a senior is likely to reflect his or her own subjective opinions and will clearly have no binding effect on the recipient.

Republic of Argentina v. Bg Group Plc

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2010

Clearly unsatisfied with the outcome of the arbitration decision, Argentina filed its petition to vacate or modify the Award on March 21, 2008. … At best, the similarities between the witness statements establish that counsel drafted the declarations in both cases.

Roseberry-Andrews v. James

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2018

The APA, and the Tucker Act, 28 U.S.C. § 1491(a)(1), “both waive sovereign immunity, allowing plaintiffs to sue the United States in specific circumstances.” Martin v. Donley, 886 F. Supp. 2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2012). … The Court disagrees that Roseberry-Andrews’ claims are clearly time-barred, and thus it concludes that transfer to the Court of Federal Claims is proper.

National Telephone Cooperative Ass'n v. Exxon Corp.

38 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 1998

Here, NTCA clearly recognized that Exxon’s contaminated property had injured its own land in 1990 when its building manager first noticed a stain on the basement wall adjacent to the gasoline station. … Despite this expansive view, however, the court carefully qualified its holding to exclude diminution of market value from its calculus: “We believe that our conclusion does not violate the established rule that the mere