Case law

Zimmerman v. Al Jazeera America, LLC

246 F. Supp. 3d 257 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

Cir. 1966) (en banc)), when “both the words themselves and the entire context in which the statement occurs” are taken into account, Tavoulareas III, 817 F.2d at 779, qualifies as defamation. … First, it is not clear to this Court that “The Dark Side” clearly communicates Sly’s repudiation of the accusations that he makes throughout the film, because the documentary references Sly’s denial immediately following

Wang Yan v. Rewalk Robotics Ltd.

391 F. Supp. 3d 150 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2019

And it provided plaintiff an opportunity to seek the appointment of a substitute or supplemental lead plaintiff or to take other steps to establish standing. … The complaint clearly alleges that the Securities Act claims and the Exchange Act claims are based on different theories: the Securities Act claims are based on an alleged failure to disclose the reason the FDA required the

Muhammad Husayn v. Gates

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2009

Should government counsel in these consolidated cases wish to have the Court deem any document or information “protected,” government counsel shall disclose the information to qualified counsel for petitioners—i.e … 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

District Lock and Hardware, Inc. v. District of Columbia

808 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2011

Under that rule, the party seeking to invoke the jurisdiction of a federal court – plaintiffs here – bears the burden of establishing that the court has jurisdiction. See US Ecology, Inc. v. U.S. … Va. 1990) ("It clearly would be improper for this court to waive the principle of comity . . . even when the state itself is willing to waive the jurisdictional limitations.").

Planned Parenthood of Wisconsin, Inc. v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2018

As the Government points out, this alleged injury is hypothetical and speculative, 11 Along similar lines, 19 states and the District of Columbia contend that the 2018 Announcement will push out well-qualified Title … X providers and advantage less-qualified providers who will undermine the states’ public health goals.

Sharp Corporation v. Hisense USA Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 13, 2017

Such a determination clearly falls within the purview of secondary-jurisdiction courts. … “A plaintiff seeking to establish specific jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant must establish that specific jurisdiction comports with the forum’s long-arm statute and does not violate due process.” FC Inv.

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers International Union v. United States Department of Energy

141 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2001

However, Plaintiffs contend that the Laffey Matrix should apply in this case because their counsel qualify as “attorneys who practice privately and for profit but at reduced rates reflecting non-economic goals.” Pis.’ … The Laffey Matrix was established, and is updated, by the Department of Justice, to reflect the prevailing market rate for attorneys by years of practice, pursuant to Laffey v.

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics v. U.S. Department of Justice

602 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2009

In that way, FOIA “embodies a general philosophy of full agency disclosure unless information is exempted under clearly delineated statutory language.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … FOIA also requires each agency to promulgate regulations specifying a fee schedule for FOIA requests and establishing guidelines for the waiver or reduction of fees. 5 U.S.C. § 552 (a)(4)(A)(I).

Armco Steel Co., LP v. CSX Corp.

790 F. Supp. 311 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 6, 1991

Any claim of inability to defend is clearly absurd. The Court, therefore, shall deny Conrail’s Motion to Stay Proceedings Pending Arbitration. … Bessemer is not a D.C. corporation and therefore does not qualify as an inhabitant. Also, Bessemer is not “found” in the District.

Friends of Animals v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2024

This helps to ensure that agencies “have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of [their] own qualified experts even if, as an original matter, a court might find contrary views more persuasive.” … Nothing more is required to establish prejudice. 3.

Miller v. Bill Harbert International Construction, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2011

See Straus, 590 F.3d at 901 (including “judicial pronouncement . . . accompanied by judicial relief” among requirements to qualify as “prevailing party”). … And where the pursuit of multiple claims inflates the total hours beyond what is reasonable for the litigation, a reduction is clearly appropriate.

United States v. Project on Gov't Oversight

543 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 2008

The only disputed matter is whether that body of work qualified as part of Berman’s “services as an officer or employee of the executive branch,” which the Court has identified as the second inquiry under this fourth element … When Congress sought to require mens rea elements in other federal conflicts statutes, it did so clearly and unequivocally.

Crisman v. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2018

Id. at 11–13 (detailing the “six clearly referenced documents”). However, “mere reference to other files does not establish the existence of documents that are relevant to [a] FOIA request.” Steinberg v. … FOIA clearly does not impose this burden upon federal agencies.”); see also Morley v. CIA, 508 F.3d 1108, 1121 (D.C.

Sereshti v. Gaudiosi

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2024

Citizenship and Immigration Services (“USCIS”) to establish a qualifying relationship with the family member to be sponsored. … Still, Karimova does not clearly dispose of the claims raised by plaintiff in the instant case.

American Oversight v. U.S. General Services Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 2018

Landano, 508 U.S. 165, 171 (1993) (noting that “[t]he Government bears the burden of establishing that the exemption applies”); Fed. Open Mkt. Comm. of Fed. Reserve Sys. v. … Two conditions must be met for a record to qualify for withholding under this exemption: “[1] its source must be a Government agency, and [2] it must fall within the ambit of a privilege against discovery under judicial

Hartline v. Barnhart

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

Hecker “clearly contradicted” the ALJ’s conclusions as Plaintiff asserts. Pl.’s Mot. at 9. Dr. … Plaintiff fails, however, to establish that the opinions of Dr. Stein and Dr. Publicker qualify for consideration under this provision.

Cobell v. Norton

231 F. Supp. 2d 295 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 2002

Circuit devised a matrix that established a standard hourly rate for attorneys in the Baltimore-Washington area for the year 1982. The D.C. … Defendants claim that Brown has failed to demonstrate that he qualifies for the rate indicated by the Laffey matrix, citing Griffin v.

Postow v. Oriental Building Association

390 F. Supp. 1130 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1975

The Court’s reasoning in this regard, however, contained a very important qualifier: “Of course, the very necessity for a proposed ‘amendment’ implies that the Board feels no disclosure is required prior to the date of closing … Thus, it clearly appears that the Court of Appeals in its controlling Bissette opinion deemed disclosure necessary prior to the creation of the contractual relationship arising from the commitment to make a loan 7 and not

Association for Education Finance and Policy, Inc. v. McMahon

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2026

Groups like Plaintiffs can establish standing in two ways. First, they can invoke “organizational standing” to sue on their own behalf. … At the motion-to- dismiss stage, Plaintiffs must “clearly . . . allege . . . facts demonstrating” that injury. Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338 (2016) (cleaned up).

Rezaian v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 22, 2019

Moreover, former judges in this district have held conduct much like Iran’s treatment of Jason is sufficiently severe to qualify as torture. In Massie v. … For those reasons, they have established that this Court has jurisdiction over their claims against Iran. II. Personal Jurisdiction The Rezaians must also establish that this Court has personal jurisdiction over Iran.