Case law

Parker v. District of Columbia

832 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 29, 2011

Supp. 2d at 12 (discussing the standard billing rates of senior partners at Wilmer Hale; finding that the relator established that Wilmer Hale’s established billing rates were consistent with the rates charged by partners … See Pl.’s Mot. at 1 (“Perdue 55   confirms beyond all doubt that this case qualifies for two of three authorized upward fee adjustments: a matrix adjustment to market rates, and

Cape Cod Hospital v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2009

The Secretary established principles for determining which rural hospitals qualified under the provision. Hospitals that were excluded challenged the Secretary’s methodology. … Therefore, the statute “clearly contemplates looking to the year in which the new relative weights and wage index will be effective, rather than to the prior year, when establishing budget neutrality.” Id.

Dammarell v. Islamic Republic of Iran

404 F. Supp. 2d 261 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 2005

They didn’t have established expertise; they didn’t have a group of people locally whom they could draw upon to do this. … Here, the plaintiffs have clearly chosen to seek recovery under the wrongful-death statute; they reference the Virginia survival statute only as an alternative theory of liability. See Pis.’

Open Communities Alliance v. Carson

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2017

This language does not allow HUD to determine whether something qualifies as an “event” in the first place. … Circuit held “very clearly commits the renewal/nonrenewal designation to agency discretion.” Steenholdt v. FAA, 314 F.3d 633, 638 (D.C. Cir. 2003).

Desai v. U.S. Citizenship & Immigration Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2021

The Government notes that “[b]ecause [Plaintiff] filed his petition before the requisite amounts were increased, he may still qualify under the old amounts.” See Defs.’ … But the question posed by TRAC is not whether Congress has established a “binding” timetable, but whether it has provided an “indication of the speed with which it expects the agency to proceed.”

Thakker v. Cuccinelli

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2021

The Government notes that “[b]ecause Plaintiffs filed their petitions before the requisite amounts were changed, they may still qualify under the old amounts.” … But the question posed by TRAC 12 is not whether Congress has established a “binding” timetable, but whether it has provided an “indication of the speed with which it

United States v. Glover

583 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 2008

The standards that govern the Court’s consideration of a motion to sever pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P. 14(a) have been clearly demarcated by the D.C. … As far as the wiretap statements are concerned, the Court is inclined to agree that such statements likely qualify as co-conspirator statements that may be admitted pursuant to Rule 801(d)(2)(E) of the Federal Rules of Evidence

Talbott v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2025

To obtain an injunction, Plaintiffs must establish a likelihood of success on the merits. They have done so. … Because the Policy clearly targets transgender medical care costs. It “rest[s] on irrational prejudice.” Cleburne, 473 U.S. at 450. 2. Defendants Misread Trump v.

United States v. Sandlin

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 10, 2021

Thus, a fish did not qualify as a tangible object. Id. … And “[o]ne to whose conduct a statute clearly applies may not successfully challenge it for vagueness.” Parker v. Levy, 417 U.S. 733, 756 (1974).

Cruise Connections Charter Management 1, Lp v. Attorney General of Canada

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2011

Circuit that the district court has jurisdiction over this case under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602-11,1 the Court turns to the Government of Canada’s motion to dismiss on the ground of … Morin thereafter insisted that the RCMP would not be responsible for any taxes, which Cruise Connections asserts were clearly RCMP’s responsibility under the Project Services Agreement and all previous representations by

Byrd v. Raines

956 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 1997

His is merely a qualified check on the will of the legislature. See 1 The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787 at 97-105 (Max Farrand ed., 1987). … Mid-America Pipeline Co., 490 U.S. 212, 219 , 109 S.Ct. 1726, 1731 , 104 L.Ed.2d 250 (1989) (upholding delegation of authority to establish and collect pipeline safety fees); Lichter v.

Matson Navigation Company, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2020

MARAD concluded that, “by incorporating Section 12111 into the MSA, Congress clearly and unambiguously established that trade with Guam under a registry endorsement, as provided in section 53102(a)(1)(A), is allowed under … The statutory text does clearly resolve the question.

Shawnee Tribe v. Yellen

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2022

Second, the procedure the CARES Act established for developing methodologies to allocate Title V funds necessarily entails deference to the Secretary. … “The qualifying tribes with the lowest ratios received a significant portion of their enrollment-allocation, and conversely, the qualifying tribes ranked toward the bottom of the ‘top 15%’ received less significant portions

Hodge v. United Airlines

821 F. Supp. 2d 180 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2011

Although the record clearly establishes that Dr. … Hodge contends that his FMLA claim should survive because he qualifies as an eligible employee based on this amendment to the FMLA.

Feld v. Fireman's Fund Insurance Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2020

Her other counsel were similarly qualified. See id. … Clearly the time spent developing those arguments was not unreasonable.

Matson Navigation Company, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2020

MARAD concluded that, “by incorporating Section 12111 into the MSA, Congress clearly and unambiguously established that trade with Guam under a registry endorsement, as provided in section 53102(a)(1)(A), is allowed under … The statutory text does clearly resolve the question.

Aghazadeh v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2024

Motion to Dismiss for Lack of Jurisdiction On a Rule 12(b)(1) motion, the plaintiff “bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence.” Bagherian v. Pompeo, 442 F. … Other courts have held that “[g]ranting or refusing a visa to an applicant who has been interviewed is clearly a discrete agency action.” Khazaei, 2023 WL 6065095, at *6.

Wall v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2021

Though there is clearly some relationship between the conduct alleged and the administration of the plan, it is not enough of a relationship to warrant preemption. … We are certain that the objective of Congress in crafting Section 1144(a) was not to provide ERISA administrators with blanket immunity from garden variety torts which only peripherally

Bowles Fluidics Corp. v. Mossinghoff

620 F. Supp. 1297 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 1985

It may often establish that an invention appearing to have been obvious in light of the prior art was not. … Section 103 of title 35, United States Code, is amended by adding at the end thereof the following: Subject matter developed by another person, which qualifies as prior art only under subsection (f) or (g) of section 102

Hall v. Central Intelligence Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 2009

The Court also concluded that, based on the evidence before it, neither Hall nor AIM qualified as a representative of the news media for purposes of a fee limitation and plaintiffs were not entitled to a public interest … An agency bears the burden of establishing that documents are properly classified as secret and thus clearly exempt from disclosure. Founding Church of Scientology of Wash., D.C., Inc. v. Bell, 603 F.2d 945, 949 (D.C.