Case law

United States v. Hill

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2021

The defendant in Chestnut was charged with the third type of offense, which clearly requires receipt of the contribution. … The Third Circuit reasoned that, if a contribution need not be legally enforceable to qualify under the statute, then the crime was completed before the campaign committee deposited the funds. Id.

Thomas J. Alston v. Lexisnexis Risk Solutions Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2022

Clearly, with respect to the hard inquiries, [the p]laintiff is only alleging that [] Lexis[Nexis] acted as a furnisher. … Howard Univ., 269 F.R.D. 40, 43 (D.D.C. 2010) (denying a motion for a more definite statement because “a review of the defendants’ submissions established that the defendants underst[oo]d the crux of [Potts’] claim”).

Oceana, Inc. v. Bryson

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 2020

While the ITS established annual numerical take limits, the monitoring mechanism stated that NMFS would produce a new loggerhead take estimate every five years. Id. (citing AR 52548). … A court must remain mindful that it reviews an agency’s scientific judgments “not as the chemist, biologist, or statistician that [the court is] qualified neither by training nor experience to be,” and thus it may exercise

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 18, 2021

“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. … Supp. 3d at 20, that qualifies it for protection under the deliberative process privilege.

AFL-CIO v. Chao

297 F. Supp. 2d 155 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2003

A union covered by the statute must file its Form T-1, or qualifying audit in lieu of the Form T-1, simultaneously with the union's filing of its Form LM-2. See 68 Fed.Reg. at 58418. … Keeping all of these principles in mind, the Court concludes for the following reasons that Plaintiff, AFL-CIO, has clearly demonstrated that the particular provision of the Rule establishing its effective date as of January

United States v. Montgomery

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 28, 2021

Second, although the nexus requirement is based, at least in part, on the need to establish an “evil intent to obstruct,” Aguilar, 515 U.S. at 599, the Supreme Court has treated the “corruptly” requirement as a separate … “So long as overlapping criminal provisions clearly define the conduct prohibited and the punishment authorized, the notice requirements of the Due Process Clause are satisfied.” United States v.

United States v. Andries

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2022

Andries says that an “official proceeding,” in the congressional context, must be akin to a hearing, and that the electoral count does not qualify because it is “ceremonial and predetermined in nature.” … But if a statute clearly applies to a great many actions, it is not invalid on its face. United States v.

Ohio Head Start Association, Inc. v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

873 F. Supp. 2d 335 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2012

Such an effect is permissible only if the relevant statute shows the Congress clearly so intended. Boniface v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 613 F.3d 282, 288 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Landgraf v. … Rather, the Plaintiffs dispute whether or not particular incidents are severe enough to qualify as “material” failures under the Head Start Act. Decl. of M.

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 17, 2021

Cir. 2010) (“To qualify under Exemption 5, a document must also be a direct part of the deliberative process in that it makes recommendations or expresses opinions on legal or policy matters.”) … Although the Court is satisfied that the SNRA documents fall under the deliberative process privilege, the documents may be withheld only if the government clearly establishes a risk of foreseeable harm from disclosure.

United States v. Taylor

254 F. Supp. 3d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2017

To the extent the defendant means to argue that he was not given the opportunity to withdraw his guilty plea prior to sentencing, relegating this effort to a collateral filing, this claim is clearly false. … defendant does not contest the accuracy of his counsel’s advice, id., and correctly informing a defendant that he may face a greater sentence after conviction at trial is not coercion, and in fact, failure to do so may qualify

United States v. Hill

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2021

The defendant in Chestnut was charged with the third type of offense, which clearly requires receipt of the contribution. … The Third Circuit reasoned that, if a contribution need not be legally enforceable to qualify under the statute, then the crime was completed before the campaign committee deposited the funds. Id.

United States v. Philip Morris Inc.

312 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 6, 2004

Whether discovery is permissible is clearly within [her] discretion in any event. Id; see also The European Community v. … On the facts presented in this Motion, it is clearly reasonable to infer that Mr.

Congress v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2020

Rehabilitation Act claims follow the familiar three-step framework established in McDonnell Douglas v. … Congress therefore must show that LMER’s investigation qualifies as a “materially adverse action” caused by her protected activity. a.

Campaign Legal Center v. Iowa Values

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2023

The defendant, not the plaintiff, "bears the burden to establish that a once-live case has become moot." West Virginia v. EPA, 142 S. Ct. 2587, 2607 (2022). C. … That is about as clearly as Congress could create a jurisdictional bar short of expressly using the word "jurisdictional."

Amarin Pharmaceuticals Ireland Limited v. Food and Drug Administration

106 F. Supp. 3d 196 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2015

The FDA acknowledged that it “has not always clearly set out its rationale for its determinations in the past”; that “neither the Agency nor regulated industry has used consistent terminology in this context”; and that … Under the FDA’s approach, a would-be innovator would not know whether its new drug would qualify for market exclusivity until after the drug was fully developed and approved by the FDA.

Sierra Club v. Browner

130 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2001

The statute is silent, however, with respect to what qualifies as a determination. … Accordingly, this Court is not persuaded that nunc pro tunc relief is required simply because EPA missed the deadlines clearly established by the CAA.

Leggett v. District of Columbia

19 F. Supp. 3d 140 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 2014

DCPS also determined she met the criteria for a student with an emotional disturbance and was therefore qualified to receive services under the IDEA. Id. … Neither does the evidence establish that [K.E.’s] residential placement at [Grier] is necessary for educational purposes.

Feld v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2016

Cir. 1984) (“The principle that objective manifestation of intent is controlling in contract formation is very well established.”). … Clearly, this is not a record on which the Court can decide the parties’ summary judgment motions as to the $200,000 expenses claim.

Viola v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2018

Viola is not proceeding in forma pauperis and has not demonstrated that he qualifies for this status. … Plaintiff has not established that there is any potential merit to his claims.

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

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2010

Cir. 1983) (indicating that the agency may establish reasonable cut-off date for its FOIA search). … The threshold issue that must therefore be addressed when Exemption 5 is asserted is whether the records in question qualify as “inter-agency or intra-agency memorand[a].” Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S.