Case law

Beltway Management Co. v. Lexington-Landmark Insurance

746 F. Supp. 1145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 1990

As detailed above, Landmark contends that invasions of the right of private occupancy are similar to, but due to some technical defect, not quite qualifying as, wrongful entry or eviction. … Specifically, one establishes a legal interest in res nullius, or unclaimed property, by establishing (a) dominion or control over it with (h) an intent to keep that object as one’s own. See, e.g., Pierson v.

Unitedhealthcare Insurance Company v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2018

The Affordable Care Act established a basic statutory framework but left several crucial terms undefined. … “Congress clearly had no intention to turn the FCA, a law designed to punish and deter fraud, into a vehicle for either ‘punish[ing] honest mistakes or incorrect claims submitted through mere negligence’ or imposing ‘a

Murphy v. Department of the Air Force

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2025

Wong, an active-duty Air Force judge advocate, 3 was well-qualified for the assignment. Id. During the time relevant here, Maj. … Second, he argues that, because ORANG terminated its clinical adverse action against Defendant, clearly no patient safety concern existed. Dkt. 110 at 7.

Neguse v. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2026

As for the seven-day notice requirement, the Court found that requiring a seven-day delay before entry to a covered facility clearly qualified as “prevent[ing]” a “Member of Congress . . . from entering” a covered facility … Plaintiffs must also establish that they face irreparable injury absent relief. Nat’l Mining Ass’n v. Jackson, 768 F. Supp. 2d 34, 50 (D.D.C. 2011); Chaplaincy, 454 F.3d at 297.

The CUNEO LAW GROUP, PC v. Joseph

669 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2009

I at 12, there is no requirement in the law that such clauses do so in order to qualify as a liquidated damages clause. … Moreover, the 2002 Settlement Agreement clearly bars the defendant from bringing these claims.

Isse v. American University

540 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2008

Defendant does not challenge Plaintiffs ability to establish his prima facie case, and the Court agrees that Plaintiff easily establishes each prong, with respect to both religious and national origin discrimination. … Circuit has pointed out, however, the same actor inference is just that, an inference, which “cannot immunize [defendant] from liability for subsequent discrimination, [and is not] alone sufficient to keep [a] case from the

Colter v. Saul

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2022

If the claim survives these five steps, then the claimant is deemed disabled and qualifies for disability benefits. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1520(a)(4). … A claimant’s allegations alone do not establish disability. See 20 C.F.R. § 404.1529.

Walker v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2017

The Court now turns to whether Plaintiff has met the second requirement for establishing a prima facie case for race based discrimination. a. Does Plaintiff Establish an Adverse Employment Action? … Unfortunately, the Plaintiff’s Whistleblower claim analysis does not clearly and concisely tie her claimed protected activity to specific adverse actions that have been alleged nor does it contain citations to the record

Geter v. United States Government Publishing Office

268 F. Supp. 3d 34 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 2017

Geter failed to show that he is a qualified individual under the ADA” and granted the GPO summary judgment. Id. at *1. In Geter I, this Court also rejected Mr. … Circuit has clearly established that a party cannot be precluded from claims that were not available in a previous action. See also Alford v. Providence Hosp., 60 F.

Coghlan v. Peters

555 F. Supp. 2d 187 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2008

Instead, plaintiffs merely insist that none of the above “establishes] that employees understood [the] consequences” of the FAA’s decision not to increase the pay bands in 2005 — namely, that the “January 2005 discretionary … defendant’s papers, it may be that defendant invokes Rule 12(b)(1) only in service of its argument that plaintiffs may not pursue their disparate impact claims because the ADEA does not waive the United States’ sovereign immunity

United States v. Oseguera Gonzalez

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2020

To qualify as “material for preparing the defense,” the D.C. … To qualify as “material to preparing the defense,” the discovery sought must be related “to refutation of the government's case in chief.” Rashed, 234 F.3d at 1285.

League of Women Voters v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 22, 2026

Courts have long held that the “unlawful” “collection, storage, and use” of private data “qualifies as an invasion of a ‘private domain, much like an act of trespass would be’” and “is closely analogous to historical claims … The Federal Defendants clearly violated the Privacy Act’s non-disclosure bar by disclosing SSA records to DHS and SAVE users (including states) without the consent of the Plaintiffs’ members.

Friedman v. Sebelius

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.”

100reporters LLC v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2018

A record only qualifies for this privilege if it is both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” Access Reports v. DOJ, 926 F.2d 1192, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 1991). … Because DOJ has not clearly demonstrated that the Work Plans make “recommendations or express[] opinions on legal or policy matters,” the Court cannot hold that they are deliberative.

Muhammad Husayn v. Gates

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 2009

Should government counsel in these consolidated cases wish to have the Court deem any document or information “protected,” government counsel shall disclose the information to qualified counsel for petitioners—i.e … The outside of the envelope or mailer for incoming legal mail shall be labeled clearly with the following annotation: “Attorney-Detainee Materials-For Mail Delivery to Detainee

Hunton & Williams LLP v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2018

Indeed, each redaction submitted to the Court is clearly both predecisional and deliberative. … Every other sample document that was mislabeled as qualifying for withholding under either the attorney-client or work product privilege was properly withheld pursuant to the deliberative process privilege.

Williams v. Aviles

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2022

Ultimately, whether a statute or regulation qualifies as proof of the standard of care is a decision for the court. See McNeil Pharm., 686 A.2d at 579. … But Plaintiff cannot claim fraud when the contract clearly identifies the product that she purchased and received.

Healthy Gulf v. Bureau of Ocean Energy Management

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2026

It has an established process for reviewing emissions from offshore oil and gas facilities. … “A final rule qualifies as a logical outgrowth [of the proposed rule] if interested parties should have anticipated that the change was possible, and thus reasonably should have filed their comments on the subject during

Knight First Amendment Institute at Columbia University v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 2026

DHS has established that this document was created to examine “the lawfulness of 1 Knight Institute’s reliance on SafeCard Services, 926 F.2d at 1204, also is misplaced. Pl.’s Rep. at 3. In that case, the D.C. … This certainly qualifies as “the chance of a reasonably expected risk” of circumvention of the law were this information disclosed. Mayer Brown LLP, 562 F.3d at 1193.

Betts v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2022

“But, because WMATA is part of an interstate compact agency, the compact jurisdictions have conferred their sovereign immunity upon it.” Id. (citing Jones v. WMATA, 205 F.3d 428, 432 (D.C. Cir. 2000)). … Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act prohibits any “program or activity receiv[ing] Federal financial assistance” from excluding, denying benefits to, or discriminating against an “otherwise qualified individual with a