Case law

United States v. Grumman

227 F. Supp. 227 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 1964

Doyle: The counsel made that ruling in accordance with our established policy and when he made that ruling he was acting within his province.” … The issue clearly must be phrased in terms of what Rule IV means by “unjust” injury. According to the Committee’s interpretation, as described by Mr.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Central Intelligence Agency

109 F. Supp. 3d 220 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 18, 2015

The Court finds that this information clearly falls within Sections 1.4(c) and (d) of E.O. 13526 because it relates to intelligence activities and foreign activities of the United States. … To qualify for withholding, material must be both predecisional and deliberative. Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Dep’t of Energy, 412 F.3d 125, 129 (D.C. Cir. 2005).

United Western Bank v. Office of the Comptroller of the Currency

928 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 2013

Although the agency’s decision to appoint a receiver is highly discretionary, it is not immune from judicial review. … States District Judge DATE: March 5, 2013 19 “When an agency relies on multiple grounds for its decision, some of which are invalid, [courts] may only sustain the decision where one is valid and the agency would clearly

Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation v. Bank of America, N.A.

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2025

The spreadsheets themselves include several counterparties that clearly have not been consolidated at the ultimate parent level. See id. … See ECF No. 372-2, at 59; ECF No. 376-2, at 29 n.11. 57 government” because “the ‘sovereign’ nature of an agency’s action does not immunize the agency from the reach of

In Re: Jeffrey B. Clark

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 2023

No. 96- 132, § 3(a), 93 Stat. 1040, 1044 (1979), 11 established that Congress “clearly contemplated compliance with [the state of licensure’s] code of professional responsibility,” Ferrara, 847 F. Supp. at 969. … But that provision, added to section 1442 as part of the Removal Clarification Act of 2011, merely “respond[ed] to” what was at the time an “inter- and intra- circuit split as to whether State ‘pre-suit discovery’ laws qualify

United States v. Gieswein

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2021

Criminal Compl., ECF No. 1-1 at 5. 31 such actions do not establish that he was a formal or de facto leader of the mob. … Gieswein argues that the government likely cannot meet its burden of proving that the baseball bat and chemical spray qualify as a “dangerous weapon” with regard to Counts Two through Four and Count Six—Assaulting, Resisting

American Federation of Labor and Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Department of Labor

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2025

But “[i]n determining whether a harm is sufficiently concrete to qualify as an injury in fact, . . . Congress’s views may be ‘instructive.’” Id. (quoting Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 341 (2016)). … The E.O. states that agency heads must “establish within their respective Agencies” a DOGE Team, DOGE E.O. at § 3(c); it does not say that agency heads must “establish a DOGE Team consisting of employees of their respective

Mohammed v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2009

In Boumediene, the court clearly left it to the District Courts to craft appropriate procedures. Boumediene, 128 S. ct. at 2272. … Supp. 2d at 69 ("[T]he armed forces of the enemy consist of more than those individuals who would qualify as 'combatants' in an international armed conflict.")

Rattigan v. Holder

604 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 2009

Potter, 363 F.Supp.2d 586, 591 (S.D.N.Y.2005), because Title VH’s anti-retaliation provision “was not intended to immunize insubordinate, disruptive, or nonproductive behavior at work.” Armstrong v. … receiving promotions while investigation was pending, plaintiff also claimed that it “placed a cloud over [her] career, which effectively prevented] her from obtaining other career-enhancing assignments for which she is highly qualified

Florida Bankers Association v. United States Department of Treasury

19 F. Supp. 3d 111 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2014

Collectively, they represent over 800 banks, at least 300 of which qualify as small businesses. See Ricco Decl.; Sandberg Decl. … To have standing to bring a lawsuit in federal court, a plaintiff must establish that: (1) it has suffered an injury in fact; (2) its injury is fairly traceable to the allegedly unlawful conduct; and (3) a favorable ruling

Williams & Connolly LLP v. United States Department of Homeland Security

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 2026

Under Exemption 6, an agency may withhold “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). … Cir. 2011) (finding “no need to consider Exemption 6 separately [where] all information that would fall within the scope of Exemption 6 would also be immune from disclosure under Exemption 7(C)); see also Jud.

Evans v. Fenty

480 F. Supp. 2d 280 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2007

“Written policies and procedures governing the safe administration and handling of medications” must be established, and medications may be administered only by appropriately trained and qualified staff. Id. … (defendants’ policies and procedures must “clearly prohibit[]” abuse, neglect, and mistreatment)), incidents of abuse and neglect of class members nevertheless persist. These incidents are well documented by the IMIU.

Daniel ex rel. M.H. v. District of Columbia

174 F. Supp. 3d 532 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

To trigger that duty, DCPS need only have a “suspicion of a disability rather than actual knowledge of a qualifying disability.” Id. (quotation marks and citations omitted). … Plaintiffs contend that they had “clearly incurred fees in the preparation and drafting of the due process complaint” which was filed eight days prior to the meeting and that, at the time of DCPS’ offer, DCPS “had no way

Felder Ex Rel. Estate of Felder v. Johanns

595 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2009

Felder and Simmons, both African Americans, alleged, inter alia, that they had been discriminated against on the basis of race (black) when they were not selected from a 1997 roster of qualified applicants to fill management … that it is unclear at what point in time IS looked at the annual promotion figures for 1997 through 2002 and how, if at all, those figures were used in determining to instate Felder at the FP-2 grade level, Wyss in fact clearly

Redding Rancheria v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 7, 2017

Had Congress intended to refer to “Indian health programs” or “tribal health programs” it would have used those terms, as clearly defined and used repeatedly throughout the IHCIA.9 That it did not is both instructive and … Given the unambiguous plain meaning of § 1623(b), the question becomes whether the Tribe’s self-insurance plan qualifies.

Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2018

More importantly, all three opinions are clearly distinguishable. … The next two tests clearly weigh against them. b.

John Doe I v. Exxon Mobil Corp

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 2, 2022

Plaintiffs counter that John Doe I’s statements qualify as excited utterances. … Circuit has held that “[fJor a statement to qualify as an excited utterance, the proponent of the exception must establish: (1) the occurrence of a startling event; (2) that the declarant made the statement while under the

New York v. Microsoft Corp.

231 F. Supp. 2d 203 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 1, 2002

The power to determine which software code constitutes a ‘Windows Operating System Product” for purposes of the SRPFJ cannot logically be viewed as a grant of special rights or immunity from prosecution under the antitrust … The Court considers it imperative, in this unusually complex case, for the Court’s retention of jurisdiction to be clearly articulated and broadly drawn.

District of Columbia v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2025

out-of-state National Guard units operating in the District pursuant to 32 U.S.C. § 502(f). 7 In their briefing, the Parties extensively dispute whether the activities the National Guard units are undertaking in the District qualify … The phrase “to aid” is best 21 A similar provision in South Carolina state law is also clearly a prohibition, not a grant of affirmative authority. See S.C.

State of Texas v. United States of America

831 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2011

A nonmoving party, however, must establish more than “the mere existence of a scintilla of evidence” in support of its position. Anderson, 477 U.S. at 252. … [M]inority voters are not immune from the obligation to pull, haul, and trade to find common political ground. 1987 was very similar.