Case law

Marck v. Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2018

the redacted information would disclose the private, inner workings of the federal grand jury, 4 “[A]lthough a rule is not generally considered to be a statute, [Rule 6(e) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure] qualifies … “Unsubstantiated assertions of government wrongdoing . . . do not establish a meaningful evidentiary showing.” Boyd v. Criminal Div. of the Dep’t of Justice, 475 F.3d 381, 388 (D.C.

United States v. Simmons

District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2022

The Charter also established the Council of the District of Columbia (“D.C. … As detailed above in Section II.C, “[i]t is established . . . that the U.S.

Friedman v. Sebelius

755 F. Supp. 2d 98 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 2010

With respect to the specific phrase “relating to neglect or abuse,” the court explained that “[t]he phrase ‘relating to’ clearly encompasses a broader range of conduct than actual neglect or abuse. … as a mitigating factor and “the imposition of a sanction as a result of cooperation establishes that the cooperation was significant.”

Dove v. Educap Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2016

“This rule … has been established in the jurisprudence of the District of Columbia, as in most of the nation, for at least a century.” Id. The D.C. … Court of Appeals clearly stated that the installment obligation rule applies when a “debt is payable in independent instalments.” Keefe, 755 A.2d at 472.

Jung v. Association of American Medical Colleges

300 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2004

Defendants assert that Illinois arbitration law therefore is not applicable here because the parties’ intent to apply the state’s arbitration law is not clearly demonstrated. … When such entities “perform acts that are the antithesis of commercial activity, they are immune from antitrust regulation.... This immunity, however, is narrowly circumscribed.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Salazar

818 F. Supp. 2d 214 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2011

Under the conservation program established by the ESA, a designation of “endangered” triggers a broad range of legal protections. … NEPA’s implementing regulations establish guidelines for determining whether and when to prepare an EIS.

United States v. Poindexter

727 F. Supp. 1501 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1989

incumbent President— who, after all, are not disinterested parties but directly partisan in opposition to the accused in the dispute over the documents — a special role in the determination whether particular documents qualify … In Part VI below, the Court establishes a procedure that will accommodate the various interests in light of such future developments.

Cigar Association of America v. United States Food and Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · May 15, 2018

But neither case establishes such a categorical rule. … The agency cannot legislate when Congress has clearly spoken. This is an area better left for Congress to consider in the first instance.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State

241 F. Supp. 3d 174 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2017

Specifically, plaintiff argues that the “State Department and Obama Administration clearly misled the public about the Benghazi attack,” and that “there is a clear connection between the government misconduct and the records … Some courts in this district have cited In re Sealed Case and discussed the possibility that the exception would apply in FOIA cases where the claimed governmental misconduct is “severe enough to qualify as nefarious or extreme

Poett v. United States

657 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2009

Defendant Weyant nonetheless determined that Plaintiffs application should be denied, finding that — although Plaintiff is not a “restricted person” under 18 U.S.C. § 175b — he qualifies as an “individual who the Attorney … Although the FBI clearly indicated that it suspected Plaintiff of having involvement with NORAID, the Court cannot ascertain from the administrative record whether the FBI also suspected that such involvement was “knowing

Digital Healthcare Inc v. Affilliated Computer Services Inc

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2011

Cir. 2000) (noting the District of Columbia’s Medicaid plan), and pay qualified health providers for a broad range of covered services provided to eligible beneficiaries. … Jan. 5, 2011) (“To be sure, the audit report clearly expresses dissatisfaction with the fact that Blackwater does not require its employees to fill out time sheets in which they certify the number of hours worked each day

United States Equal Employment Opportunity Commission v. George Washington University

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2020

One of the emails is clearly privileged, as it reflects legal advice communicated from Associate General Counsel Baldwin to Ms. … on privileged communications to establish a defense).

AF Holdings LLC v. Does 1-1,058

286 F.R.D. 39 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2012

RemarQ Cmtys., Inc., 239 F.3d 619, 625 (4th Cir. 2001) (“The DMCA was enacted both to preserve copyright enforcement on the Internet and to provide immunity to service providers from copyright infringement liability for … This Court does not agree that the plaintiff must use geolocation tools in order to establish a basis for jurisdictional discovery or to establish venue.

Shea v. Verizon Communications, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2012

Shea also came to understand that, in general, the United States did not have to pay such charges because of its Constitutional immunity from state and local taxes. Id. ¶ 11. … In addition to the $96.5 million recovery, the Government saved what would clearly have been continuing overcharges. 14.

Holt v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2010

Rather, “a plaintiff pursuing an action under FOIA must establish that either: (1) the Vaughn index does not establish that the documents were properly withheld; (2) the agency has improperly claimed an exemption as a matter … The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v.

White v. Bradford (In Re Tax Reduction Institute)

148 B.R. 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 1992

The estate remains insolvent and clearly has insufficient assets to pay unsecured claims in full. … He additionally established a $2,471.80 avoidable post-petition payment. Thus, he has established a total of avoidable transfers of $6,157.63.

Rochon v. Attorney General of the United States

734 F. Supp. 543 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 1990

“Rather, the employer may be liable despite having taken remedial steps if the plaintiff can establish that the employer’s response was not ‘reasonably calculated’ to halt the harassment.” Waltman v. … This is clearly not a ease of an employer sitting back idly and ignoring an employee’s complaints of racial harassment.

Ark Initiative v. Tidwell

64 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 18, 2014

Cir. 1985) (“The Supreme Court has clearly indicated that the Administrative Procedure Act itself . . . suppl[ies] a generic cause of action in favor of persons aggrieved by agency action.”) (emphasis added). … The Ninth Circuit held that the group, “as a litigant earlier in this action,” was “clearly an interested person” entitled to personal notice under § 1501.7. Id. at 595.

United States v. All Assets Held at Bank Julius Baer & Co.

315 F.R.D. 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 2016

Waiver Normally, the next questions in the work-product analysis are whether and to what extent the work product at issue is factual or opinion work product and whether Plaintiff has established sufficient need … Here, by contrast, Claimant proffers only the highly qualified protections of section 6110.

United States v. Mihalopoulos

228 F. Supp. 994 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 1964

Antonelli’s testimony thus clearly implicated the defendant as an aider and abetter. His credibility as a witness was, however, manifestly vulnerable. … A delay of an hour or more for the purpose of reducing oral admissions to writing clearly does not violate Rule 5(a). (cases cited.)