Case law

Long v. Howard University

512 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 2007

Plaintiff omits reference to the paragraph immediately preceding the instruction on reconsideration which clearly states that the jury is assigned the “question of fact” of determining “whether, and if so, when” plaintiff … Plaintiff objected to the admissibility of his undisputed statement of material facts in support of his motion summary judgment, on the ground that there was nothing establishing that plaintiff “saw, read, [or] endorsed”

Donovan v. United States Postal Service

530 F. Supp. 872 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 1981

Clauss wanted USPS to establish a formula for payments to non-plaintiffs based on an accounting for plaintiffs, should USPS and FB&R fail to settle. … The Secretary of Labor has filed a suit against the United States Postal Service on behalf of all letter carriers who did not qualify as plaintiffs in the Kaplan, et al. FLSA actions.

Libertarian National Committee, Inc. v. Federal Election Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2018

At this stage, the LNC’s arguments are not so clearly frivolous, and the merits of the FEC’s argument so overwhelmingly obvious, as to make certification unwarranted. iii. … Clearly, it was a good year for our party. Id. at (citation omitted). II. The LNC’s Fundraising and Spending On Segregated Account Expenses 10.

United States v. Morrow

102 F. Supp. 3d 232 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2015

Circuit has recognized for claims of juror misconduct, “[t]he trial court obviously is the tribunal best qualified to weigh the relevant factors and draw the conclusion appropriate.” United States v. … As such, Morrow’s argument is without merit because the statute clearly encompasses the bank robberies as racketeering acts.

Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Retire

District Court, District of Columbia · May 15, 2009

Statutory and Regulatory Background It is well established that ERISA does not require employers to establish retirement plans for their employees and does not mandate any particular level of benefits that must be … Attempting to bolster its interpretation, Hilton argues that the “Pension Committee’s 39 interpretation of a disputed Plan provision should be upheld unless clearly

New York Times Company v. Defense Health Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 2021

Qualifying exceptional circumstances are amply demonstrated here. … confidential FBI informant ahead of imminent evidentiary hearing). 15 production of records in FOIA cases is generally denied. 10 The FOIA requests at issue here clearly

Cruise Connections Charter Management 1, Lp v. Attorney General of Canada

967 F. Supp. 2d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2013

The conversation also clearly distinguished CCCM’s potential tax liability, if it were found to be a Permanent Establishment under Canadian tax law, from the matter of cruise-line taxes. … from suit under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (“FSIA”), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602–11.

Hyatt v. Vidal

District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2024

The PTO clearly did not know what to do with Mr. … Hyatt clearly abused the patent examination system suffices to establish prejudice for prosecution laches purposes. B.

Pinson v. U.S. Department of Justice

236 F. Supp. 3d 338 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2017

It is well established that FOIA does not require an agency to retain records, but only to provide access to records that have been retained. Kissinger v. … Like the documents at issue in Mingo and Holt, the 40 Pinson attempts to argue that the BOP may not qualify as a law enforcement agency. See Pl.’s Opp’n at 4.

Marcum v. Salazar

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2011

Article III of the United States Constitution establishes federal courts of limited jurisdiction. … This Court has made clear that “[a] permit decision-making proceeding is clearly adjudication rather than rule making.” Nat’l Wildlife Fed’n v. Marsh, 568 F. Supp. 985, 992 n.12 (D.D.C. 1983).

NAACP, Jefferson County Branch v. U.S. Secretary of Labor

865 F. Supp. 903 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 1994

As the Plaintiffs correctly point out, both §§ 655.207(c) and 655.102(b)(9) refer to “piece rates” generally; neither indicates any intent to limit or qualify the term in any way. … Finding that the Clearance Order clearly established an 8-ton/day minimum productivity standard, Judge Brown held that the task rate could not be less than the AEWR per ton.

Avmed, Inc. v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2021

The decision to suspend CAHPS and HEDIS submissions was clearly connected to the decision to rate plans using old CAHPS and HEDIS data—which, in turn, resulted in plaintiffs’ 2021 Star Ratings. … Clark, 489 U.S. 726, 739 (1989) (discussing “provisions . . . in which a general statement of policy is qualified by an exception”); In re Woods, 743 F.3d 689, 698 (10th Cir. 2014) (discussing “the statute’s structure—setting

Bellinger v. Bowser

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2017

Therefore, by their non-discriminatory criteria, the closing of Capitol View Library would not typically qualify for an interim facility. … Plaintiffs are clearly displeased with the interim services that DCPL has provided—and the interim facility it plans to provide—for their neighborhood during the Capitol View Library renovation process.

Noble v. Sombrotto

84 F. Supp. 3d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2015

Nov. 19, 2013) (“although the qualifier ‘to the best of my knowledge’ is a limitation that raises significant concern,” the Court relied on the challenged affidavits where the declarant “adequately described facts which show … The Court accordingly relies on these declarations only for propositions that are clearly supported by such a foundation. 12 $18,000 he received between 1988 and 1990, and for nearly all

Garcia Ramirez v. U.S. Immigration and Custom Enforcement

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2020

white applicants were qualified and nonwhite applicants were not. … See 5 U.S.C. § 704 (establishing reviewability of “final agency action”). As the Supreme Court established in Bennett v.

Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc. v. Gaubatz

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2011

Here, the Gaubatz Defendants have failed to allege, let alone establish, any bad faith or prejudice. … First, the Gaubatz Defendants argue that electronic data does not qualify as the sort of “personal property” protected by the tort of conversion. See id.

Liuksila v. Lynch

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 26, 2018

Petitioner has failed to establish that the conduct at issue in Finland would not be unlawful if comparable conduct occurred in the United States. … Such conduct, were it to occur in the United States, is clearly proscribed by 18 U.S.C. § 1001.

Felder v. Johanns

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

Federal Trade Commission v. Swedish Match

131 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 2000

Once this presumption is established, the burden of producing evidence to rebut the presumption shifts to the defendants. See United States v. … An HHI between 1000 and 1800 indicates a "moderately concentrated” market, and any market with an HHI over 1800 qualifies as "highly concentrated.” See FTC v.

Rattigan v. Ashcroft

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2009

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