Case law

United States v. Washington

907 F. Supp. 476 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 16, 1995

Stinson is clearly a significant holding for its impact on sentencing and the authority of the Sentencing Commission. However, a close inspection reveals that it fails to even minimally address questions at issue here. … While the Magistrate Judge based his order on the risk of flight and the safety of the community, the Court finds that the government has not established that the defendant presents a risk of flight.

Wang v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2016

Your actions during and following my attempt to issue that warning clearly demonstrated to me that you had no remorse for your behavior. … Of course, in a case in which an employer’s action does not clearly qualify as an adverse employment action, “the Court still first must determine whether plaintiff suffered an adverse employment action.” Donovan v.

Rae v. Children's National Medical Center

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 28, 2020

Supp. 3d at 403. 10 Because Rae’s termination indisputably qualifies as an adverse action, and because CNMC has articulated a legitimate, non-discriminatory reason for its decision to terminate his employment, the … “Despite Title VII’s range and its design as a comprehensive solution for the problem of invidious discrimination in employment, the aggrieved individual clearly is not deprived of other remedies he possesses and is not

United States v. Neely

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2023

He argues, however, that Vice President Pence was not “temporarily visiting” the Capitol, as he had a “permanent office” there and it should qualify as his “place of employment.” Id. … Nonetheless, Neely argues that his “limited education and understanding of the criminal justice system shows that he clearly did not understand the consequences of talking to the FBI.” Mot. to Suppress at 5.

Rosenberg v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2018

If so, courts “then determine whether . . . disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 626 F.3d 678, 681 (2d Cir. 2010) (“The sentence structure of Exemption (b)(7)(E) indicates that the qualifying phrase (‘if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the

In Re Newbridge Networks Securities Litigation

926 F. Supp. 1163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 1996

These allegations may be insufficient to establish that defendants had a duty to disclose such negative, firm-specific information. … Moreover, plaintiffs’ allegation that the July 12, 1994 newspaper article should have disclosed “adverse business conditions” is clearly insufficient under Rule 9(b).

Jackson v. Colgate-Palmolive Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2019

Legal Standard for Admissibility of Expert Testimony A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: … Gordon chose to follow clearly states that data should “be recorded in a systematic form so that they can be processed rapidly.

Hawaii Longline Association v. National Marine Fisheries Serv.

281 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2003

The ESA clearly imposes a substantive legal requirement on the action agency. 16 U.S.C. § 1536 (a)(2). … However, in Plaintiffs opening brief, it clearly establishes that the 2002 BiOp is, in fact, arbitrary and capricious because, like the June 2002 Regulations, its formulation rests on the conclusions of the unlawful and vacated

Bell Helicopter Textron Inc. v. Airbus Helicopters

78 F. Supp. 3d 253 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2015

Without more, however, this showing is insufficient to establish infringement by Beh. … Bell’s testing of the Original Gear qualifies as an unauthorized use under § 271.

United States v. Price

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 18, 2023

It first acknowledged that “if th[eir] conduct had taken place in a 8 vacuum, it might well not be disruptive,” but explained that “the mob clearly . . . did, in fact, … Defendants propose adding a requirement that conduct be disruptive in order to qualify as a demonstration. See Acquittal Mot. at 26.

Albert v. Perdue

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2019

Because such non-selection is clearly an adverse employment action, see Kalinoski v. Gutierrez, 435 F. … Legitimate, Nondiscriminatory Explanation To justify its non-selection, Defendant maintains that Albert was not qualified for the GS- 14 position based on his interview performance.

Taylor Energy Company LLC v. United States Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2010

To establish a secure source of funds to carry out its decommissioning obligations, Taylor and MMS negotiated an agreement under which plaintiff would establish and fund a trust for the benefit of MMS (“the Trust”), with … 10 In the event that the agency agrees with plaintiff that no waiver has occurred, it must then address the merits of plaintiff’s Exemption 4 arguments. 16 clearly

Imark Marketing Services, LLC v. Geoplast S.P.A.

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 6, 2010

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs (“DCRA”) in order to qualify to conduct business within the District. Id., Ex. E (DCRA Application). … Labadie Coal, 672 F.2d at 97-99; see also id. at 96 (“[F]ormalities are [] an excellent litmus of the extent to which the individuals involved actually view the corporation as a separate being.”).6 “It is clearly not necessary

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

449 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2006

Smoking was thus established as a major cause of preventable disease. … The crux of the situation is whether there is general agreement by qualified pathologists that carcinoma ... has indeed been produced.

Morgan v. Saul

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2021

Affirmative answers to questions 3 or 5 establish disability.” Hines v. Bowen, 872 F.2d 56, 58 (4th Cir. 1989). The claimant bears the burden of proof at the first four steps of the evaluation. Callahan v. … Here, the ALJ clearly expressed the reasoning underlying her assessment of Plaintiff’s RFC throughout her discussion of the medical and other evidence.

Slate v. Public Defender Service for the District of Columbia

31 F. Supp. 3d 277 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 2, 2014

The plaintiff clearly understood this hand-action to be a “tease” and noted that “[e]very time Primo would do this Plaintiff would flinch and Primo would laugh.” Id. … Nonetheless, a DCHRA discrimination claim against an individual must still meet the requirements of timeliness and qualify as an adverse employment action.

Tharp v. Acacia Commc'ns, Inc.

321 F. Supp. 3d 206 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2018

A fair inference can be drawn that, if Acacia loses one of its large and profitable customers, the loss could severely impact its revenue and growth, an inference that was clearly outlined in the prospectus for investors … The prospectus qualified these statements with cautionary language about the associated risk factors that could derail the expected results.

Guarascio v. Federal Bureau of Investigation Office of Information Policy

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 1, 2023

The “Child Victims’ Act unambiguously qualifies as an Exemption 3 statute,” Corley v. Dep’t of Just., 998 F.3d 981, 985 (D.C. Cir. 2021), and the withheld records fall squarely within the Act’s ambit, see 18 U.S.C. … 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).

In Re: Roberto Felice Donna

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2019

In order to establish nondischargeability under § 523(a)(2)(A), the Employees must establish the following: (1) misrepresentation, fraudulent omission or deceptive conduct by the debtor; (2) knowledge of the falsity or … “The mere breach of a promise is never enough in itself to establish fraudulent intent.

New Life Evangelistic Center, Inc. v. Sebelius

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 8, 2009

GSA in turn determines whether such excess property qualifies as “surplus,” — i.e., “excess real property [that is] not required by any Federal landholding agency for its needs or the discharge of its responsibilities, as … Rather, read in proper context, it indicates only that, in HHS’ view, New Life had not clearly articulated how it intended to facilitate (i.e., deliver) such services through its proposal to provide its clients with referrals