Case law

Jackson-Pringle v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2022

First, she claims—without any authority—that “an undated and unsigned notice has not clearly been issued by the signatory authority.” Opp’n at 17. … Hence, the Court concludes that any confusion caused by Jackson-Pringle’s receipt of an unsigned right-to-sue letter and the EEOC’s issuance of a second letter upon request does not qualify as an extraordinary circumstance

Pearce v. Department of the Army

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2025

, Exemption 7(C) is more protective of privacy than Exemption 6 and thus establishes a lower bar for withholding material.” … The record before the Court establishes that the Army properly redacted and withheld information under the Privacy Act.

United States v. Fahnbulleh

742 F. Supp. 2d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 2010

. § 3161 (h)(8) because the government’s request to Liberia was clearly outstanding between [those] dates.” Id. at 7 . … XIV (“No State shall ... abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person ... due process of law[,] nor deny an person ... the equal protection of the laws.”

Purdue Pharma L.P. v. Collegium Pharm., Inc.

335 F. Supp. 3d 149 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2018

At a minimum, Purdue's response to the examiner did not clearly disclaim all other forms of oxycodone, including oxycodone myristate. … In other words, if a drug contains a pharmaceutical excipient (component D) with an excipient function (function Z) that also happens to irritate when the product is abused, that excipient would not qualify as an "irritant

Born Free USA v. Norton

278 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2003

Thus FWS convincingly established that there was no significant public health issue associated with importation of the elephants. … that the planned treatment and breeding of the elephants in the zoos meets the standards for Elephant Management and Care devised by the American Zoological Society; that the zoos had demonstrated that their personnel were qualified

National Wildlife Federation v. Marsh

568 F. Supp. 985 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 1983

A permit decision-making proceeding is clearly adjudication rather than rule making. … Not all courts distinguish as clearly as does Grazing Fields between the procedural and substantive aspects of review under NEPA.

Beberman v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2024

And the operating procedure’s 18 discussion of reassignments cuts against the idea that such an adjustment qualifies. … The Board accepted these explanations and found that Beberman failed to establish pretext. Id.

D. C. Federation of Civic Associations, Inc. v. Volpe

316 F. Supp. 754 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 1970

The TPB, on the other hand, has been established to provide area wide transportation planning. … We have discussed the requirements of the hearing regulations with specificity because that issue has been clearly raised by the parties.

Securities & Exchange Commission v. Diversified Growth Corp.

595 F. Supp. 1159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 1984

In addition, to qualify as an inactive entity there must have been no material change in the business of the company, § 210.3-11(d). An affidavit submitted by Mr. … Clearly neither DGC nor ADC meets the test of an inactive company for purposes of § 210.3-11.

United States Ex Rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.

266 F. Supp. 3d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2017

Nevertheless, it appears that there clearly is some confusion over what portion of those claims remain for trial. … These partial statements “suppress or conceal [] facts within [the speaker’s] knowledge which materially qualify those stated.” See Kapiloff v.

United States v. Garcia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2022

During the standoff, defendant got so close to the officers “that their names are clearly visible in the video.” SOF at 4. … Circuit has already established that “a community’s voting patterns are [not] at all pertinent to venue.” Haldeman, 559 F.2d at 64, n.43.

Reid v. Chao

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2023

By contrast, reporting alleged misconduct does not “immunize” a reporter from “petty slights or minor annoyances.” Id. Whether a harm is material or petty “will often depend upon the particular circumstances. … Under Rule 12(b)(1), a plaintiff has the burden to establish the Court’s subject-matter ju- risdiction. DaimlerChrysler Corp. v. Cuno, 547 U.S. 332, 342 (2006).

Littell v. Udall

242 F. Supp. 635 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 1965

Jones a claims ease and clearly stated that claims cases involve a contingency fee. In Udall v. … Hayden at the Bureau of Indian Affairs and agreed upon a formula which would avoid the risk of the sovereign immunity problem.

Taylor Energy Company LLC v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 2020

Taylor submitted evidence that the waves generated by Hurricane Ivan qualified as an “act of God,” and that these waves caused the platform’s collapse. See id. ¶¶ 85–87. … Moreover, it is well-established in the D.C.

Castle v. Caldera

74 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 22, 1999

He has failed to allege or establish that other officers had avoided through reimbursement alone any ADSOs incurred pursuant to the Program. … The Program was thus specifically designed ”[f]or the purpose of obtaining adequate numbers of commissioned officers on active duty who are qualified in the various health professions. ...” 10 U.S.C. § 2121 (1994).

United States v. Chansley

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2023

However, these hypothetical scenarios fall woefully short of establishing a legally sufficient showing of prejudice. … A defendant cannot establish prejudice under these circumstances. See United States v. Ayers, 938 F.

Boehm v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

948 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 2013

In order for particular records to qualify for this exemption, the agency must first demonstrate that the documents were compiled for law enforcement purposes. See Rural Hous. Alliance v. U.S. … Plaintiff’s objections to these withholdings are not clearly delineated.

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. National Archives and Records Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2021

These plans can include “schedules proposing the disposal” of records that lose their “administrative, legal, research, or other value” over time and do not qualify for permanent retention. Id. § 3303(3). … The professors attached their recent research paper based on FOIA requests to ICE detention centers and noted that “[r]esponses to our FOIA requests clearly demonstrate research value for social scientists and legal scholars

United States v. Oakar

924 F. Supp. 232 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 1996

A conspiracy prosecution-may proceed even where the alleged co-conspirators are immune from . prosecution. United States v. Sangmeister, 685 F.2d 1124, 1127 (9th Cir.1982). … Clearly, one category of information requested by DeMio — material exculpatory evidence in the government’s possession — must be disclosed to him. Brady v.

Kalorama Citizens Association v. Suntrust Bank Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2020

Cir. 2017) (“If both constitutional and prudential objections are raised to standing . . . it is entirely appropriate to deny standing on prudential grounds if that course is easier, or more clearly right, than to rule … Even if the alleged easement would qualify as a conservation easement under the UCEA, though plaintiffs contend that “the UCEA strongly favors enforcement of conservation easements by nongovernmental entit[i]es like [p]laintiffs