Case law

Whitaker v. Central Intelligence Agency

31 F. Supp. 3d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2014

To qualify for protection under the privilege, materials must be “both ‘predecisional’ and ‘deliberative.’” Pub. Citizen, Inc. v. Office of Mgmt. and Budget, 598 F.3d 865, 874 (D.C. … See Walter Decl. ¶ 52 (“Release of [the withheld] information would cause a clearly unwarranted invasion of the personal privacy of the named individual.

C.G.B. v. Wolf

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2020

Indeed, pursuant to Fraihat, ICE evaluated C.G.B. and determined that she does not qualify for the class of high-risk detainees in that case. Cantú Decl. ¶ 23. … —also fail to establish irreparable injury.

Center for Immigration Studies v. Cohen

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2019

Cir. 1980) (where defendant qualified her statement with “it seemed to her,” thus making clear that what she had to say was only an opinion, it did not constitute fraud). … Second, plaintiff has clearly tried to shoehorn a defamation claim into the RICO framework. But the D.C.

Nibber v. United States Citizenship and Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2020

These consequences far exceed mere economic harm, and clearly illustrate the consequences of USCIS’s delays and backlogs for plaintiff, her family, and others in her life. … They further claim that plaintiff qualifies for neither expedited consideration of her applications, because she has not submitted biometrics information, see Defs.’

Alsco-Harvard Fraud Litigation Consolidated Cases

523 F. Supp. 790 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 1981

The Court is, however, unable to determine on the basis of counsels’ assertions which of these interpretations is correct because application of the legal standard turns primarily on specific facts not clearly presented to … An injunction already has been placed on certain assets that may qualify for a constructive trust under the Fifth Claim. See, Judgment (December 27, 1976), United States v.

Cummings v. Murphy

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2018

The plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the court has subject-matter jurisdiction. See Lujan v. … Complete vote nullification is clearly a type of an institutional injury sufficient to support legislator standing.

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. Drone Advisory Committee

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2019

Sandoval makes clear that absent a clearly evinced intent to create a cause of action, courts “may not create one, no matter how desirable that might be as a policy matter.” … Like the task forces in Anti-Hunger, the DACSC was set up specifically to conduct staff work for the DAC, with a clearly established hierarchical structure mandating for all recommendations to be approved by the DAC.

United States v. Ring

811 F. Supp. 2d 359 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2011

As the government correctly notes, the “threshold for establishing a causal connection under § 2C1.1(b)(2)(A) is low,” United States v. … DeGovanni, 104 F.3d 43, 46 (3d Cir.1997), and therefore, he qualifies for the 3-level “manager or supervisor” enhancement. B.

Mia v. Kimberly Clark Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2025

In RJR Nabisco, the Supreme Court held that RICO § 1962 applies extraterritorially “to the extent that the predicates alleged in a particular case themselves apply extraterritorially,” making it the “rare statute that clearly … Cir. 2022) (gravamen of TVPRA action was domestic for FSIA immunity purposes where defendant was alleged to have committed a financial crime in the United States and thus the “‘financial benefit’ that violate[d] § 1589(

Fennell v. Aarp

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2011

At the time of his termination, Fennell had more seniority and experience than all the managers who remained employed in his department, and he claims to have been qualified for the positions that were not eliminated. … while nothing from the face of Fennell’s filings would suggest that he was anything other than an at-will employee—i.e., an employee hired without an expressed term or duration for his employment—neither does anything clearly

McCabe v. Barr

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2020

that “[t]he regulations establishing the [FBI SES] shall . . . … The answer to these questions is important because a small loss might fail to qualify as a significant property interest. Cf. Fox v. District of Columbia, 851 F.

Hughes v. Abell

794 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 2010

A non-moving party, however, must establish more than the “mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 . … Hughes alleges that the transaction he entered with Baltimore, Abell, and Modern Management in September 2004 was a “sham sale of his home” that should qualify “as a consumer credit transaction within the meaning of [TILA

Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP v. Internal Revenue Service

537 F. Supp. 2d 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2008

Because “[t]he Agency must ... carry the burden of establishing that documents contain the ideas and theories which go into the making of the law and not the law itself,” Arthur Andersen & Co. v. … “This was a communication from one Cabinet level Department to another and drafting such a document can be delicate in that Treasury wanted to carefully and clearly convey the message that they no longer wanted [DOT] to permit

United States v. Browne

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2022

Based on the facts noted above, counsel’s conversations with the witnesses were clearly substantive. The Court will not quibble on semantics—i.e., “conversation” vs. “interview.” … And it is well-established that failing to make a meritless objection cannot be the basis of an ineffective-assistance claim. See United States v. Marshall, 946 F.3d 591, 596 (D.C.

Alaska v. United States Department of Agriculture

273 F. Supp. 3d 102 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2017

Importantly, the Act explicitly retained Congress’s authority to designate which areas qualify as “wilderness areas.” Id. § 1132. … In the FEIS, the USDA included a discussion of socio-eco-nomic factors and published the SBA’s comment letter, which clearly outlined the SBA’s position on the applicability of the RFA.

United States v. Languerand

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 19, 2021

. § 111(b) qualifies as a “crime of violence” for purposes of the Bail Reform Act. See, e.g., United States v. Padilla, Crim. No. 21-214 (JDB), 2021 WL 1751054, at *5 (D.D.C. … Languerand extra credit for his accidental failure to cause the harm he clearly intended to inflict.

Foltz v. U.S. News & World Report, Inc.

627 F. Supp. 1143 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 1986

The plan quite clearly is not an “employee welfare benefit plan,” ERISA § 3(1), 29 U.S.C. § 1002 (1), nor does it seem to be an “employee pension plan.” … The first involves what are clearly disputed issues of fact, as pointed out in the discussion of the limitations issue, supra.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of Commerce

384 F. Supp. 2d 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2005

Judicial Watch is clearly eligible. … Circuit that this Court fully explore the facts in order to establish an appropriate remedy for the liability findings. Microsoft, 297 F.Supp.2d at 37-38 .

Danzy v. Iatse Local 22

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 23, 2020

However, Local 22 qualified that if, for other reasons, discovery is reopened, then it would still want all information requested in its motion to compel. … Danzy’s requests for clearly pertinent information, including the depositions of its own officers and agents whom Mr.

Amore Ex Rel. Estates of Amore v. Accor North America, Inc.

529 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2008

Motions to dismiss and for summary judgment do not qualify as responsive pleadings for the purposes of Rule 15. James, 229 F.3d at 283 ; Bowden v. United States, 176 F.3d 552, 555 (D.C.Cir.1999); U.S. Info. Agency v. … As the court noted, this constituted "reverse piercing” of the corporate veil, "disregarding the corporate form to reach assets of a corporation for debts of a shareholdert, which] is clearly permissible where justice so