Case law

Clay v. Howard University

128 F. Supp. 3d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2015

If the facts as alleged, which must be taken as true, fail to establish that a plaintiff has stated a claim upon which relief can be granted, the Rule 12(b)(6) motion must be granted. See, e.g., Am. … In the context of rehiring, Plaintiff must also show that she “applied for an available job and was qualified for that position.” Amiri, 35 F. Supp. 3d at 46.

Shepherd v. American Broadcasting Companies, Inc.

151 F.R.D. 179 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 1992

Frisoli’s tendered affidavit as establishing the truth of this important issue. 27. … Clearly, the Court finds that the same policy considerations which mandated dismissal of the entire action in Weisberg v.

United States v. Greene

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 2021

Such qualifying language appears nowhere in the “Age of the Defendant” discussion. … In enacting section 3582(c)(1)(A), Congress clearly contemplated the possibility that defendants convicted of the most heinous crimes would seek—and, in appropriate cases, receive—compassionate release: subsection 3582

Kurdyukov v. United States Coast Guard

578 F. Supp. 2d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2008

The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [Exemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. … Joseph Kramek explains in his declaration that release of the employee’s name “would result in a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy” and “could potentially result in threats against him or her, as [the underlying

Johnson v. Commission on Presidential Debates

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2016

Stein were each qualified on enough State ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority. Opp’n [Dkt. 45] at 8. … The Supreme Court has stated clearly and often that the First Amendment freedom of speech includes the right to speak freely and the right to refrain from speaking. See Wooley v. Maynard, 430 U.S. 705, 714 (1977).

United States v. Prime Time International Company

930 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2013

Circuit found to clearly violate the statutory language. Id. at 22–23. On this question, USDA is correct and Prime Time is wrong. … For instance, within the proposed large cigar category, heavy “large” cigars and very light “large” cigars (those that barely qualify as “large”) would pay the same per-stick amount.

United States v. Park

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2018

Accordingly, courts in this Circuit have utilized the well-defined Interstate Commerce Clause framework—established in United States v. … The government argues that section 2423(c) should be assessed under the “demonstrable effect” test established in Bollinger, 798 F.3d at 215–16, instead of the “substantial effect” test established in Lopez.

Fitzgerald v. Hampton

545 F. Supp. 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 1982

The Bureau of Executive Manpower certified the proposed DPM position as GS-17 and determined *59 that plaintiff was qualified for the position. … Formulates, establishes and implements policies and procedures for the Air Force productivity program including development of productivity enhancement goals and necessary reporting systems. 4.

Duggar v. Thomas

550 F. Supp. 498 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 1982

He had been brought to the EEOC to assist in establishing proper procedures and controls within this Division. … Clearly, Ms. Duggar, black, is a member of the protected class.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2018

4 Corps’ Rock Island District also issued a permission under Section 408 of the Rivers and Harbors Act for a crossing of the Mississippi River, after the district determined that the proposal qualified … This line of argument is unavailing, as the scoping process clearly falls under the authority of each agency charged with conducting a NEPA analysis.

Vindman v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2022

It concludes that he clearly has not. Plaintiff principally contends that various statements Defendants and their alleged co-conspirators made were defamatory. … In his Opposition, he contends that one of these three statements — “Vindman has faced accusations of poor judgment, leaking, and going around normal procedures” — so qualifies. See Pl. Opp. at 45–46.

Richardson Bay Environmental Protection Association v. Federal Aviation Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2023

Exemption 6 protects “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). … The court finds that these representations sufficiently establish the applicability of Exemption 7(A). Cf.

Community Housing Trust v. Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs

257 F. Supp. 2d 208 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2003

Pursuant to these regulations, Zeke’s House would best qualify as a “CRF for mentally ill persons.” … will not plague *220 future establishments. 16 Thus, defendants have not shown that the alleged violation wih not recur.

Bennett v. Berryhill

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2019

Second, Plaintiff claims that the ALJ failed to establish a logical connection between the evidence cited and the conclusions reached in determining Plaintiff’s RFC. … Instead, Plaintiff clearly stated that she stopped working in 2007 because “I was informed that there was no longer any light duty for me there at Metro.” AR 75.

Johnson v. Wilson

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 2018

Even assuming Judge Sullivan had not testified clearly as to his practice with complaints after he joined the bench, he was clear in May 2007, in a letter replying to Bar Counsel, that he could not respond fully to the … It subsequently elaborated that counsel’s interest in avoiding an advice-of-counsel defense where raising that defense would reveal counsel’s inaccurate legal advice could qualify as a conflict under Cuyler.

Hajjar-Nejad v. George Washington University

37 F. Supp. 3d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

Clearly, “a school’s failure to comply with published policies can be evidence of arbitrariness.” Bain, 2013 WL 5423101, at *4. … On this point, the Court notes that the Regulations do not clearly provide for such rights.

Housing Study Group v. Kemp

736 F. Supp. 321 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 1990

Furthermore, the movant must establish that the irreparable injury is likely to occur. … Rather, it clearly demonstrates that HUD is taking away the responsibility and authority previously delegated and entrusted to the coinsuring lenders.

American Oceans Campaign v. Daley

183 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2000

Intervenor-Defendants argue that the statute clearly states that only regulations promulgated under this chapter are judicially reviewable. … The statute clearly indicates that both these steps were to be taken by the October 1998 deadline.

Gurrola v. Astrue

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2010

In general, an individual qualifies as disabled “only if his physical or mental impairment or impairments are of such severity that he is not only unable to do his previous work but cannot, considering his age, education … Gurrola’s condition was necessary, and he clearly had no obligation to update the record in the absence of evidence suggesting that the record was incomplete.

Ute Indian Tribe of the Uintah and Ouray Reservation v. United States Department of Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2021

Moreover, the 1906 Act’s “sue and be sued” language is a waiver of sovereign immunity and does not speak to whether the Act creates specific trust duties at all. See El Paso, 750 F.3d at 891–92. … Fourth, as the Tribe and Intervenor Defendant are both in Utah and the Federal Defendants prefer Utah, it is clearly more convenient, geographically speaking at least, to litigate in Utah.