Case law

Common Cause v. Democratic National Committee

333 F. Supp. 803 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 1971

Section 609 2 of that Title establishes permissible limits to annual receipts and expenditures by political committees. 3 Both Sections provide penalties of a fine, imprisonment, or both, for violations. … supra, 369 U.S. at 208 , 82 S.Ct. at 705 (citations omitted.) 10 *809 Likewise, the declared interest of Common Cause in improving governmental responsiveness to the will of the unorganized mass of citizen voters adequately qualifies

Wirtgen America, Inc. v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2020

The Court also held that “a claim that Customs wrongfully excluded the merchandise giving rise to this dispute”—as opposed to “a claim that the Limited Exclusion Order is unlawful”—did not qualify as “a determination appealable … The Court doubts that the LEO clearly omits the redesigned machines.

Information Systems & Networks Corp. v. Abdnor

687 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 1988

The SBA decision to release the SNAP-II *681 requirement was not a departure from the established policy and practice. … The conduct of the SBA officials in reviewing the SNAP-II contract was clearly “discretionary” in nature and “within the outer perimeters” of their official duties. Westfall v.

Holmes-Martin v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2010

justified by legitimate, non-discriminatory and non-retaliatory reasons, because many of those actions do not qualify as adverse employment actions and because she was not subjected to severe or pervasive hostile conduct … May 29, 2008) (holding that the plaintiff demonstrated pretext in part by establishing a causal connection).

Katopothis v. Windsor Mount Joy Mutual Insurance Company

211 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2016

Delaware law clearly proscribes such a use. In O’Brien v. … establish minimum contacts.

Amuso v. United States Department of Justice

600 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 2009

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. … Exemption 6 4 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).

Lipscomb v. Winter

577 F. Supp. 2d 258 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2008

This is most clearly reflected in the following exchange with counsel: Q: ... … Such a duty is well-established in the law.

J.G.G. v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2025

These cases establish conclusively that courts can determine an individual’s alien-enemy status — and are obligated to do so when asked. … Needless to say, the risk of torture, beatings, and even death clearly and unequivocally supports a finding of irreparable harm. See, e.g., United States v.

Educational Assistance Foundation for the Descendants of Hungarian Immigrants in the Performing Arts, Inc. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

32 F. Supp. 3d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2014

The party asserting the privilege, even if disclosure of the communication was inadvertent, bears the burden of establishing each of these three elements. … Dep’t of Corrs., 262 F.R.D. 45, 55 (D.D.C. 2009) (commenting that it was a “debatable proposition” that attempting to rectify an inadvertent disclosure fifty-five days after discovery qualified as sufficiently prompt to

McDowell v. Cgi Group, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2017

Under the terms of CGI's contract, it must "'provide accessible and qualified management, production, and operational support personnel' to 2 All facts are taken from Plaintiffs Amended Complaint. [Dkt. No. 25]. … That approach accords more closely to the liberal pleading standard established by the Federal Rules.

Federal Trade Commission v. Facebook Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2022

The Commission put forth a number of reasons why other technology services — such as LinkedIn, YouTube, Spotify, and Netflix — do not qualify. … Here, the FTC advances a modern variation on that well- established barrier to entry.

Project for Privacy and Surveillance Accountability, Inc. v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2024

When evaluating a claim under Exemption 3, courts must determine whether the statute identified by the agency qualifies as an exemption statute and, subsequently, whether the material falls within the scope of the statute … “Exemption 7(E) clearly protects information that would train potential violators to evade the law or instruct them how to break the law.” Mayer Brown, 562 F.3d at 1193.

Gold Anti-Trust Action Committee, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2011

To demonstrate that a document is predecisional, the burden is on the agency to “establish[ ] what deliberative process is involved, and the role played by the documents in issue in the course of that process.” … Plaintiff asserts, without explanation, that only a portion of this document (a two-page staff comment) can validly qualify under Exemption 5.

United States v. Clarke

611 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2009

Even if the procedure had been suggestive in this case, Joseph’s identifications were clearly reliable in light of the circumstances. … There is little left, then, to Clarke’s challenge because, as set forth above, the record clearly establishes that he was given proper Miranda warnings aboard the FBI aircraft, voluntarily waived his rights and made a voluntary

United States v. Glover

174 F. Supp. 3d 431 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

Thus, Glover’s claim that his counsel failed to investigate and learn of his heroin addiction is clearly contradicted by the record. … In Jones, the Court held that In order to qualify as a person aggrieved by an unlawful search and seizure, one must have been a victim of a search and seizure, one against whom the search was directed

Welenc v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2019

Supp. 2d 82, 115 (D.D.C. 2008) (concluding that documents which “reflect such matters as trial preparation, trial strategy, interpretation, personal evaluations and opinions pertinent to [a plaintiff’s] criminal case” qualify … CONCLUSION The FBI has established that its search for records responsive to FOIPA Request No. 1239835 was reasonable, that it properly withheld information under FOIA Exemptions 5 and 6, and that it released all

American Federation of Government Employees, Local 812 v. Broadcasting Board of Governors

711 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 2010

But contrary to Wiley’s suggestion, Durika’s declaration, if signed, would be sufficient to establish that Moore’s email was not available for review. … The Court concludes that the agency has met its burden of establishing the applicability of Exemption 2 with respect to these documents. 16 C.

Navajo Nation v. Peabody Holding Co.

255 F.R.D. 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 2009

The parties do not dispute that the documents originally qualified as privileged. Instead, the parties disagree about whether the Navajo subsequently waived these privileges. … The Court, in its discretion may issue a protective order upon a showing of good cause, which “is only established when the movant demonstrates that disclosure would cause a clearly defined and serious injury.”

Freeman v. United States Department of the Interior

37 F. Supp. 3d 313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2014

. § 29).5 To qualify for a patent, the applicant must establish that the mining claim is valid. United States v. Shumway, 199 F.3d 1093, 1101‒02 (9th Cir. 1999) (“[N]o right arose from an invalid claim.”). The D.C. … of an intervening right that precludes [plaintiff] from establishing a discovery.”

Council for Urological Interests v. Sebelius

946 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2013

Instead, CMS asserted, “the language of [subsection (e)(7)] clearly says that a group practice will not have a prohibited compensation arrangement with a hospital, if certification conditions are met: it does not address … by [C]ongress for a lease to qualify for a compensation exception.”