Case law

Competitive Enterprise Institute v. United States National Security Agency

78 F. Supp. 3d 45 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2015

This document thus also fails to establish that all data is collected. … The Primary Order is clearly directed at specified companies, but the names of those companies are redacted and remain classified. See FISC Primary Order, April 25, 2013, at 3.

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

North Carolina Fisheries Ass'n, Inc. v. Gutierrez

518 F. Supp. 2d 62 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2007

The first of these hurdles is tied to plaintiffs’ contention that, in order to qualify as the “best,” the scientific information in the final version of Amendment 13C had to be approved explicitly by the Council’s SSC. … And as the Secretary points out, other parts of the record suggest that vermilion snapper could not have qualified as overfished because its biomass was unknown. Def.’s Mem. at 25 n. 13 (citing AR 5350-51).

United States v. Edelin

134 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2001

As the Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals found, the relevant analysis is to compare cases which qualify under these factors to “the larger class of all murders [including] felony murders for which the death sentence could not … Armstrong, clearly established the burden of proof on a criminal defendant who makes charges of abuse of prosecutorial discretion.

United States v. Singhal

876 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2012

principle that prohibits extraterritorial application of U.S. statutes unless congressional intent to the contrary is reflected clearly in the statute. … However, it is well established in the D.C.

Marino v. Drug Enforcement Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2021

But it did not establish a “rigid ‘press it at the threshold, or lose it for all times’ approach to agenc[ies’] FOIA exemption claims.” Id. (quoting Senate of Puerto Rico, 823 F.2d at 581). … And there has been no “intervening change in the law” or demonstration that “the previous decision was ‘clearly erroneous and would work a manifest injustice’” to justify revisiting this issue. See Loma Linda, 185 F.

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.

United States v. Roba

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2017

(f)(1)(A), and (f)(1)(E) because the charged offenses include brandishing a fire- arm during a crime of violence, which triggers the rebuttable presumption, and interference with interstate commerce by robbery, which qualifies … According to the above, Roba participated in no less than three armed robberies within the period of one week, and did so, at times, in broad daylight or clearly in the vicinity of bystanders.

In Re Capitol Hill Group

320 B.R. 460 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2005

Although Newmark may have performed or intended to perform some services for the debtor that do not qualify as traditional real estate brokerage services governed by D.C.Code § 42-1705, Newmark was at least in part providing … reference to several documents, a party can satisfy the written listing agreement requirement of D.C.Code § 42-1705 by piecing together several writings if one of the writings is signed and the writings in the circumstances clearly

Manuel v. Potter

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2010

Under the McDonnell Douglas framework, “the plaintiff must establish a prima facie case of discrimination” in the first instance, Reeves v. … The Court agrees that the three above mentioned actions qualify as adverse under the governing law because given their connection to the plaintiff’s wages, each “would have dissuaded a reasonable employee from making a

Donoghue v. National Archives and Records Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2024

“conducted thorough and diligent searches of relevant systems of records that were reasonably calculated to find documents responsive to Plaintiff’s request as written[,]” Williams Decl. ¶ 13, and that knowledgeable, qualified … As the CIA clearly instructed, a Glomar response is “a standard notification given to all . . . requesters and should not be taken as an indication excluded records do, or do not, exist.” See May 2022 OIG Ltr.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Securities Investor Protection Corporation

872 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2012

Thus, the SIPA statute clearly specifies that the SEC must proceed by “apply[ing] to the district court . . . for an order requiring SIPC” to comply with the statute. … Contrary to established policy, none of the funds at issue were deposited with the clearing broker.

Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation (No. Ii)- Mdl No. 2925

District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2021

The 2009 transaction data is clearly relevant to establishing lingering-effects damages from these price authorities, and, as plaintiffs submit, to identifying the price authorities, if any, pursuant to which plaintiffs … These considerations clearly show that the burden of plaintiffs’ request for 2010–2012 transaction data outweigh the benefits. The remaining Rule 26(b) factors weigh in plaintiffs’ favor.

Estate of Christopher Brook Fishbeck v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2024

Under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), a foreign state that has been designated by the U.S. … McCormick . . . establishes that he has suffered prolonged and severe psychological injuries (without physical injury)[.]”).

Hmh Hospitals Corporation v. Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 2025

“SSA assigns [payment status] codes to track monthly (1) whether enrollees qualified for the payment and (2) the reason why or why not.” Advoc. Christ Med. Ctr. v. … A showing of futility requires “certainty of an adverse decision or indications that pursuit of administrative remedies would be clearly useless.” UDC Chairs Chapter, Am. Ass’n of Univ. Professors v.

McCrea v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2021

Americans with Disabilities Act and Rehabilitation Act Claims The ADA prohibits employers from discriminating “against a qualified individual on the basis of [a] disability.” 42 U.S.C. § 12112(a). … Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 328–39 (1989) (discussing the district court’s authority to dismiss claims sua sponte where the “factual contentions are clearly baseless”).

Concepcion v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

606 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2009

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. … Exemption 6 Exemption 6 protects from disclosure “personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6).

Truthout & Jeffrey Light v. Department of Justice

968 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2013

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “[t]he mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Id. at 252. … To qualify for protection as deliberative process material, a document must be “predecisional” (that is “generated before the adoption of an agency policy”) and “deliberative” (that is reflecting “the give-and-take of the

Weng v. Solis

842 F. Supp. 2d 147 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2012

Weng failed to establish by a preponderance of 13 the evidence that the Agency’s articulated legitimate, non-discriminatory reasons for its actions 14 were pretext for discrimination; (4) she failed to establish by … The Act provides that “[n]o otherwise qualified individual with a disability” 5 may “be subjected to discrimination” by any federal agency “solely by reason of her or his 6 disability.” 29 U.S.C. § 794(a).

United States v. Young

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 2, 2025

Defendant has made no attempt to establish any of those elements other than with her unsupported assertions. … “[W]hether a qualified right of access exists depends on ‘considerations of experience and logic.’” Id. at 20 (quoting Press-Enter. Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 478 U.S. 1, 9 (1986)).