Case law

Bynum v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 2020

Bynum’s incident report does not qualify as “protected activity” under Title VII because Ms. Bynum fails to link Mr. Billett’s alleged assault to her membership in a protected class, and Ms. … The court reasoned that “[w]hile informal complaints to management may constitute protected activity, the plaintiffs must clearly complain about discriminatory treatment.” Id.

Acosta Orellana v. Croplife International

District Court, District of Columbia · May 13, 2010

Compl. ¶ 392 clearly implying that the spraying of Mancozeb is not a nuisance under all circumstances. (emphasis added); see Defs.’ Mem. at 23. … Cir. 2005) (noting that Noerr-Pennington provides immunity from liability “under the antitrust laws”) (emphasis added); Whelan v. Abell, 48 F.3d 1247, 1254 (D.C.

Beach Tv Properties Inc. v. Soloman

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 2016

The CBPA required the FCC to promulgate regulations to establish a class A license for LPTV qualifying stations. See 47 U.S.C. § 336(f)(1)(A). … The provision that Plaintiffs cite, § 336(f)(2)(B), defines which stations qualify as LPTV stations.

H.R. v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2024

2  A “local education” or “State” agency—in this case, District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”)—performs an “initial evaluation” to determine if a child has a qualifying … clearly weighed the relevant testimony and dismissed the issue as speculative.

Massachusetts Lobstermen's Association v. Ross, Jr.

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 5, 2018

Most of the definitions, including “to exercise directing influence, regulate, hold from action, curb,” clearly indicate something less than absolute control. … [are] too few and too disparate to qualify as string of statutory terms.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

Dakota Resource Council v. U.S. Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2024

Cisneros, 509 U.S. 137 (1993), because Interior regulations do not clearly require an agency appeal in this context and because Interior does not automatically stay decisions pending such an appeal. … Whether they also qualify as “cumulative” actions is less evident.

Lannan Foundation v. Gingold

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 2017

The court first noted that neither plaintiff qualified for compensation as a plaintiff in the underlying class action. Id. … As Gingold points out, the Foundation knew how to draft language that would more clearly create legal obligations. It did so elsewhere in the Grant Agreements.

In Re Harman International Industries, Inc. Securities Litigation

27 F. Supp. 3d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2014

Plaintiffs also claim that the company’s senior executives qualify as control persons under section 20(a) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, 15 U.S.C. § 78t(a) (2012), and are therefore individually liable for the … Indeed, every circuit court to directly consider the issue has held that the statutory text establishes a disjunctive test. See, e.g., Slayton v. Am.

Mera v. Barr

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2024

to establish a hostile work environment, Hartsell, 123 F.3d at 773. … Cir. 2014) (citation omitted), a plaintiff “must produce enough evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that he (1) has a disability; (2) was qualified to perform the essential functions of employment with or without

Wallbuilder Presentations v. Clarke

District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 2024

This definition, and Guideline 9 itself, fail to address basic parameters, such as how many people must have differing opinions and how significant must the differences be to qualify as “varying opinions”? … The party invoking federal jurisdiction—here, WallBuilders—bears the burden of establishing all three elements. Id. at 561.

Sluss v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2019

First, he argues that the records in question do not qualify as records “compiled for law enforcement purposes.” … Attorney’s office regarding an inmate’s placement within the network of institutions under BOP control [ ] are clearly related to the enforcement of federal laws”); Linn v.

United States v. Zabavsky

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 22, 2022

Material evidence “is not limited to evidence that is favorable or helpful to the defense and does not immunize inculpatory evidence from disclosure.” United States v. Safavian, 233 F.R.D. 12, 15 (D.D.C. 2005). … For one, the issues in this case are clearly different – Mr. Sutton does not dispute that the indictment in this case was properly signed by the grand jury foreperson and former Acting U.S. Attorney Phillips.

Sai v. Transportation Security Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2018

Circuit has, likewise, observed that the deliberative process privilege is a qualified privilege, which “disappears altogether when there is any reason to believe government misconduct occurred.” … First, while Exemption 6 requires the agency to demonstrate that disclosure would constitute a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy,” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6), Exemption 7(C) “omits the adverb ‘clearly,’” 100Reporters

Organic Trade Association v. United States Department of Agriculture

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2019

“A ‘theoretical possibility’ is not sufficient to qualify as ‘capable of repetition’; there must instead be a ‘reasonable expectation’ or ‘demonstrated 21 probability … The language in §§ 6517 and 6506 shows that Congress clearly knew how to compel consultation and involve the Board more closely in the promulgation of regulations.

MARINE TRANSP. SERVICES SEA-BARGE GROUP v. Busey

786 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1992

The June 6 Opinion also indicated that there was a need to establish guidelines on the cargo-mix issue. … The court may also look to the statute's legislative history to determine whether Congress clearly addressed the issue. See id. at 988 .

Minebea Co., Ltd. v. Papst

444 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2006

An implied term barring such suit clearly would be inconsistent with this express term. See Murphy v. Amer. Home Prods. … Dalziel is not qualified to opine on the matters for which he is relied upon by Professor Hausman. Mr.

United States v. the Thomson Corp.

949 F. Supp. 907 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 1996

In rejecting the “sweat of the brow” doctrine of copyright, the Supreme Court emphasized that the “sine qua non of copyright is originality” and that only those components of a compilation that qualify as an “original work … It was clearly a major concern of the government’s with respect to each of the markets effected by the proposed merger.

Healthy Gulf v. Haaland

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2025

As is “well established,” the statute is “essentially procedural.” Id. (citation omitted). … No matter, for Intervenors’ interpretation is clearly belied by the statute and the record.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America v. National Labor Relations Board

118 F. Supp. 3d 171 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2015

Sections 153 through 156 establish the National Labor Relations Board. Id. §§ 153–156. … It clearly specifies that the purpose of the section 9(c) hearing is to determine whether a question of representation exists.

Price v. Barr

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2021

Price’s ability to film at Yorktown Battlefield and the Manassas National Battlefield is clearly traceable to § 100905 and its implementing regulations. … The parties dispute whether § 100905’s specific application to “commercial filming” qualifies as a content-based restriction.