Case law

Zambon v. Islamic Republic of Iran, Ministry of Foreign Affairs

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 2024

This Court has previously awarded qualifying plaintiffs the Peterson II baselines, granting upward and downward variances to certain plaintiffs based on individualized circumstances. … Anderson the $5 million Peterson II baseline award because the record does not establish whether Mr. Anderson had custody of his son.

Mannina v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2020

Supp. 3d 254, 262 (D.D.C. 2014) (declining to decide sovereign immunity issues based on complexity and insufficient briefing). … Mannina has established negligence by clear and convincing evidence.

United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.

569 F. Supp. 1057 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 1983

Clearly, they may sublicense patents for the manufacture of products which will assist them in providing intra-LATA service. … As for the claim that the very establishment of a CSO might give rise to antitrust problems it is well established that a joint technical organization with responsibility for setting standards does not in and of itself violate

Concepcion v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2009

The “information need not actually be ‘rules and practices’ to qualify under [E]xemption 2, as the statute provides that matter ‘related’ to rules and practices is also exempt.” Schwaner v. U.S. … The declaration, then, establishes that release of these investigation forms may risk circumvention of the law.

United States v. Bikundi

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2016

To qualify for personal care services covered by D.C. … Medicaid beneficiaries, when they were not qualified to provide those services. e.

Proctor v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2021

Even drawing all reasonable inferences in her favor, without more, the Court cannot find that either document qualifies as a “policy document” sufficient to impose liability on the District. See Connick v. … Dec. 8, 2006). 41 There, Fresno made “no effort to separate and store for later retrieval items that are clearly owned and are valuable, not trash.” Id.

Brown v. Wmata

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 2020

Sept. 18, 2018) (merely assuming that the labor necessary to “review[] an already-identified set of documents” could qualify as an unreasonable burden). … Plaintiff disagrees and asserts that he “clearly satisfies [the] lenient standard” for determining whether he is entitled to a reduction in fees as a member of the news media.

Forest County Potawatomi Community v. Sally Jewel

278 F. Supp. 3d 181 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2017

Rather, to qualify as “agency records,” requested documents must satisfy two requirements: the agency must (1) “either create or obtain the requested materials” and (2) “be in control of [them] at the time the FOIA request … Colo. 2001) (concluding that information relating to the computation of royalties assessed on production of oil and gas on a tribe’s reservation was “clearly” “commercial or financial” information).

Cs-360, LLC v. U.S. Department of Veteran Affairs

846 F. Supp. 2d 171 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2012

To qualify for inclusion, a small business “must be unconditionally owned and controlled by one or more eligible veterans, service-disabled veterans or surviving spouses.” 38 C.F.R. § 74.2 (a). … Just as the burden of establishing that the agency action is arbitrary or capricious rests with the party challenging agency action, so too must that party establish that the errors ascribed were prejudicial.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2021

To qualify under this privilege, a record must be both “predecisional” and “deliberative.” … The withholding of talking points is somewhat more complicated, but ultimately those at issue here clearly fall within the privilege. “The D.C.

Holland v. Robert Coal Company

986 F. Supp. 621 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 17, 1997

GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 , 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056 , 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980) (“Absent a clearly expressed legislative intention *627 to the contrary, [statutory] language must ordinarily be regarded as conclusive” … Defendants contend that a final judgment creates an absolute, inviolable right that is immune from Congressional regulation. (Defs.’ Mem. Summ. J. at 22-23) (citing McCullough v.

Mohammed v. Obama

689 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2009

The record establishes that Rahman guided Mohammed to Hafiz’ guesthouse in Jalalabad. … It would not establish that ISN 197 never used the kunya at Guantanamo Bay.

United States v. Western Elec. Co., Inc.

673 F. Supp. 525 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 1987

Clearly, that is not the situation here, and the Court accordingly declines to enter that thicket. … However, if this were a necessary prerequisite to the establishment of a system that clearly would be useful and could be made to pay for itself — as some claim is probable (see note 285, supra) — it may be that such an initial

Public Broadcasting Service v. Donald J. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

Title II of the Act, in turn, “authorized” the “establish[ment] [of] a nonprofit corporation, to be known as the ‘Corporation for Public Broadcasting’, which [would] not be an agency or establishment of the United States … Ct. 2635 (July 8, 2025) (“AFGE”), the Federal Defendants suggest that the Court should be wary of adjudicating facial challenges to qualified executive orders “that merely direct future agency actions consistent with the

Nelson's Cabinetry, Inc. v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2025

This observation, however, does not alter the Court’s conclusion both because (1) plaintiffs have not identified any constitutional right outside of a right of entry to this country — which clearly does not exist, see Dep't … Pimentel’s visa implicates Nelson’s Cabinetry’s “interest in hiring foreign workers when there are no qualified available U.S. workers for specific positions.” Opp. at 13.

Roy v. FedEx Ground Package Sys., Inc.

353 F. Supp. 3d 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2018

Specifically, "for a case to qualify for class action treatment, it needs to meet the additional due process standards for class certification under Rule 23 - numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy of representation … In addition, Defendant complains that Plaintiffs "seek to co-opt FedEx Ground communication channels (a compelled speech problem)" and do not clearly accept the costs of promulgating notice (Dkt. No. 55 at 18 n.13).

National Motor Freight Traffic Association Inc v. General Services Administration

68 F. Supp. 3d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2014

Congress’s determination that there was sufficient competition in the market and that a free market would work best to set prices, it nonetheless left in place GSA’s post-audit authority, and it added subsection (d)(2), clearly … As GSA explains: “GSA, in its discretion, did not establish a timeframe for issuance of a Notice of Overcharge.

Jackson v. Kennedy

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2026

The Administrative Procedures Act was cited as an example of a “general, catchall” statute, while the Court concluded that Title VII and the ADA qualified as more “specific” because those statutes addressed “invidious … Considered together, these allegations plausibly and clearly state that inaccurate performance records caused plaintiffs’ terminations.

Flete-Garcia v. U.S. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2021

Here, EOUSA claims that Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 6(e) is a qualifying statute that shields “‘matter[s] occurring before a grand jury.’” … Voting records clearly constitute a “secret aspect” of the grand jury’s investigation and are thus shielded from disclosure pursuant to Rule 6(e).

Shapiro v. Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · May 25, 2016

The plaintiffs first question whether Exemptions 7(A) and 7(E) qualify as exemptions that protect the kind of national-security interests identified in August and Maydak and acknowledged as sufficiently weighty in Shapiro … categorical exemption (e.g., “All of the records were withheld under Exemption 3”) and reserving the use of more targeted exemptions in the event the court rejects that exemption, the FBI provides no reason why it did not clearly