Case law

Frech v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2025

To qualify for PHS funding, an institution must “[h]ave written policies and procedures for addressing allegations of research misconduct” and “[r]espond to each allegation of research misconduct.” 42 C.F.R. § 93.300(a … Supp. 2d at 241 (holding that a debarment decision did not violate the APA because it “clearly” indicated that the agency “evaluated each mitigating factor” raised by the respondent, including the “time that has elapsed

Cullen v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2023

The former applies to “personnel and medical files and similar files the 7 disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C … Both protect similar interests, but Ex- emption 7(C) establishes a “somewhat broader” carve-out than does Exemption 6. See McCutchen v. HHS, 30 F.3d 183, 184–85 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting DOJ v.

Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2022

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). … Likewise, “[i]t is established . . . that individuals do not waive their privacy rights merely by testifying at trials.” Peay v.

United States v. Standard

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 3, 2024

Section 404 allows courts to impose a reduced sentence “as if” the reduced crack cocaine penalties established by Sections 2 and 3 of the Fair Sentencing Act of 2010, Pub. … Although he quite clearly faced and deserved, a lengthy period of incarceration, it is implausible that were he sentenced today he would have faced a mandatory life sentence.

Marcusse v. United States Department of Justice Office of Information Policy

959 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2013

3 FOIA Exemption 3 covers matters that are “specifically exempted by statute . . . provided that such statute either (A) [requires withholding] in such a manner as to leave no discretion on the issue, or (B) establishes … Rule 6(e) qualifies as a 15 statute for purposes of exemption 3 because it was affirmatively enacted by Congress. See Fund for Constitutional Gov't v.

Canning v. United States Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 24, 2018

There was no reason for the Department to search for records created after its earlier release of records to the Canning Plaintiffs—or after publication of the Gulf News Report article—and the record clearly establishes … “To qualify for withholding under Exemption 5’s executive privilege, information must be both ‘predecisional’ and ‘deliberative.’” Petroleum Info. Corp. v. U.S. Dep’t of Interior, 976 F.2d 1429, 1434 (D.C.

Federal Trade Commission v. Meta Platforms, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 13, 2024

The “exclusion” of competitors, the court held, qualifies as such conduct. … Ohio 2015) (applying theory to acquisition of potential entrant rather than established participant).

Shapiro v. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2020

ATF has therefore established the adequacy of its search. C. … This description fails to establish the applicability of the deliberative process privilege.

Laughlin v. Holder

923 F. Supp. 2d 204 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2013

Here, the 2009 and 2010 non-promotion claims did not even arise, and clearly were not raised, until after the investigation of Laughlin's administrative complaint had ended, whereas the 2008 bonus claim was raised in that … Hamilton, 666 F.3d at 1357-58 (discussing significance of temporal proximity in establishing prima facie case); Winston v. Clough, 712 F. Supp. 2d 1, 11 (D.D.C. 2010).

Wielkoszewski v. Harvey

398 F. Supp. 2d 102 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 2005

The request was *109 returned unacted-upon, however, with a notation that “this patient is qualified for separation.” Request from Illesheim to Orthopedic Medical Board, Admin. … The administrative record clearly shows that at no time was Plaintiff ever evaluated by a PEB. Request from Illesheim to Orthopedic Medical Board, Admin.

United States v. Thompson

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2026

Id. 35:4-7 (The Court: “So basically you don’t know if Officer 1 would qualify, as a legal matter, as an unavailable witness in this case.” AUSA-1: “I do not, and I have not done the research. . . . … Supp. 3d 42, 50, 52 (D.D.C. 2023) (concluding “the public interest would be best served by a dismissal with prejudice” because the Court was “convinced that the government pursued the case knowing it could not establish

Smith v. Astrue

534 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2008

Legal Framework for Determining Disability To qualify for disability insurance and supplemental security income benefits, an individual must establish that he is “disabled.” 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 (a)(1)(E), 1382(a)(1). … While the ALJ did not specifically mention these findings in his decision, he was clearly aware of them since he adopted physical limitations in conformance with the findings and, as discussed in more detail below, he specifically

Clark v. Feder Semo and Bard, P.C.

895 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2012

Gerald Feder clearly qualified under this amendment for treatment under Class A. Tr. 806:22-25 (Nielsen). … Finally, the parties also disagree about whether Clark must show willful or bad faith conduct to establish the defendants' breach of fiduciary duty.

United States v. Libby

475 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2007

Specifically, the Court noted that the confessions (1) were made spontaneously to friends, (2) were corroborated by evidence already in the case, and (3) were clearly against McDonald’s interest. … clearly and unequivocally the circumstances showing an improper purpose existed.”

Overseas Shipholding Group, Inc. v. Skinner

767 F. Supp. 287 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 1991

Clearly, MARAD took a “hard look” at the data for the shipping industry and the Court has no reason to reject the agency’s considered judgment. … Also, the 1987 Rule does not establish any precedent for future action which would adversely impact the environment.

Canuto v. Carter

273 F. Supp. 3d 127 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2017

Canuto is clearly suing the corporate entity Woodman- Sylvan Properties even though she has named “DePauw HK Property Management” as a defendant in her complaint. … “First, the defendant must qualify for either general or specific jurisdiction under the relevant District of Columbia statutes.” Id.

Beach Tv Properties Inc. v. Soloman

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2021

Likewise, “most courts have permitted the owner or officer of a business to testify to the value or projected profits of the business, without the necessity of qualifying the witness as an accountant, appraiser, or similar … But conclusory assertions without any evidentiary support do not establish a genuine issue for trial. See Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C.

United States v. Straker

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2009

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 … Legal Analysis Because Seales never promised De Four de facto immunity from prosecution in exchange for his cooperation, De Four's primary argument has been eviscerated.

Corel Corp. v. United States

165 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2001

In other words, once the task or delivery order contract itself has been obtained through full and open competition, orders made pursuant to that contract are immune from CICA’s full and open competition requirements. … which are relevant to its final decision; (3) when an agency considered evidence which it failed to include in the record; (4) when a case is so complex that a court needs more evidence to enable it to understand the issues clearly

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. National Archives and Records Administration

214 F. Supp. 3d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 4, 2016

Independent Counsel, the active independent counsel was obligated to transfer all records which had been created during its tenure to the Archivist of the United States (“Archivist”), 28 U.S.C. § 594(k)(1), and was to “clearly … When determining whether to qualify withheld material as “grand jury” material, it is appropriate to rely on statements by the government’s declarant. See Davis v. U.S. Dep’t of Justice, 970 F.