Case law

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.

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.

United States v. Ginyard

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2022

“The principle that the exclusionary rule applies only when discovery of evidence results from a Fourth Amendment violation is well- established.” Id. … However, responses to question that “otherwise qualify as ‘custodial interrogation’ are rendered admissible when they fall within the ‘routine booking question’ exception.” Id. (citing Pennsylvania v.

Hawkins v. Gonzales

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 2009

Although Hawkins’ briefing is less than a model of clarity and fails to clearly set forth the exact claims she seeks in the instant lawsuit, it appears from the Court’s own review of Hawkins’ complaint and briefing that … Supp. 2d 2 (D.D.C. 2007) (“a lateral transfer must have materially adverse job-related consequences to qualify as an adverse action, for ‘purely subjective injuries . .. are not adverse actions’”) (quoting Forkkio v.

United States v. Washington

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2021

The penal-interest hearsay exception requires that "corroborating circumstances ... clearly indicate [the statement's] trustworthiness." Fed. R. Evid. 804(b)(3). … Ct. 1817 (2021 ), the Supreme Court held that reckless offenses do not qualify as crimes of violence under the ACCA's elements clause. Id. at 1825.

Colorado River Cutthroat Trout v. Salazar

898 F. Supp. 2d 191 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 2012

Although the FWS did not state explicitly that it found these 1226 miles not to be a “significant portion” of the range, the FWS clearly articulated how it evaluated significance throughout the Finding and in a subsection … In its Not Warranted Finding, the FWS noted that the voluntary agreements under the Conservation Strategy “do not qualify as a regulatory mechanism” and that the FWS could not base its finding on a “promised or anticipated

Ecological Rights Foundation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2021

Nov. 14, 2018) (finding declarants’ statements that they were “authorized and qualified to make the declaration based on their positions” and certification that their declarations were “‘true and correct’ under the penalty … Thus, when invoking Exemption 7(C), an agency need not establish much more than the fact of disclosure to establish foreseeable harm. See Reps. Comm. for Freedom of Press v. FBI, Civ. Case No. 15-1392 (RJL), 2020 U.S.

United States v. Bourdet

477 F. Supp. 2d 164 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2007

Finally, the Mansfield Amendment contains two additional provisions that are both explicitly labeled as “exceptions” to paragraph one, meaning they permit activity that would otherwise clearly be prohibited. … In order to qualify for the Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination that Miranda warnings are designed to protect, however, “a communication must be testimonial, incriminating, and compelled.” Hiibel v.

Abraxis Bioscience, LLC v. Kappos

10 F. Supp. 3d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 2014

Thus, agency rules that do not qualify for the high level of deference required under Chevron, are not placed “outside the pale of any deference whatever” and “may merit some deference whatever its form, given the specialized … The USPTO is thus correct in relying on Blacklight as “clearly permit[ting] the [USPTO] to continue examination of the application to resolve any remaining questions of patentability up until the issuance of the patent.

Jackson v. Berryhill

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2022

“Because the ALJ simply listed all of the evidence without clearly explaining which particular pieces of evidence led [her] to [her] conclusion, there is no logical bridge, and no thorough discussion and analysis.” … While the State agency disability experts are not treating or examining doctors, they are experts in all phases of disability evaluation and well-qualified to render an opinion regarding the nature and

Parnigoni v. St. Columba's Nursery School

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2010

The circumstances clearly satisfy this element of a defamation claim. 3. … Specifically, the defendants contend that their statements qualify as opinions that are protected by the First Amendment. Id. at 17-18. This Court does not agree.

Gilbert v. James

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2018

. § 1552(a)(1), and is authorized to establish procedures governing such corrections, id. § 1552(a)(3)(A). … The plaintiffs are correct that they did not qualify for the Berkley class and thus would not have received formal notice of their ability to join that class action. See Pls.’

United States of America v. Aetna Inc.

240 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 2017

On balance, then, the expert case too tilts clearly toward the government. 5. … The companies do not contend that this system of federal regulation confers implied immunity from the antitrust laws. See Tr. 3725:20–23 (post-trial argument).

United States v. Mostofsky

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2021

That connection to interstate commerce will need to be established in each prosecution, including in the trial in this case. … Indeed, conduct previously penalized under the statute includes clearly unprotected activity such as throwing items at officers, attacking officers, spraying officers, and creating a barricade to prevent officers’ movement

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility v. Beaudreau

25 F. Supp. 3d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2014

USCG418-19 (requiring, among other things, that wind turbine generators be clearly marked, that “[throughout the design process for a wind farm, assessments and methods for safe shutdown should be established and agreed,” … Remain Mem. at 31, but instead clearly states that the Coast Guard expected “a moderate impact on navigation safety,” CW66389.

Benoit v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 1, 2019

As to the cost of the IEE, the hearing officer determined that Plaintiffs had failed to establish Dr. … This was clearly in error. However, rather than ruling on Plaintiffs’ request to award E.B. the requested prospective placement, the Court will again remand that determination to the hearing officer.

Stonehill v. United States Department of Justice Tax Division

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 10, 2022

These showings are sufficient to establish that the work-product privilege applies. See Ellis, 110 F. Supp. 3d at 108. … Once again, to qualify for the deliberative process privilege, a document must be both predecisional and deliberative. Sierra Club, Inc., 141 S. Ct. at 785–86.

United States v. Sabol

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2021

For the reasons discussed more fully supra Section III, Part B.1, video footage clearly shows Mr. … Sabol’s ability to establish and maintain strong, meaningful relationships. The letters also demonstrate that Mr.

Trump v. Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives

District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2019

It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the Special Committee to Investigate … days of taking office, and to divest all financial interests that would pose a conflict of interest by “either converting those interests to cash or investments that satisfy ethics rules or placing those interests in a qualified

Trump v. Committee on Oversight and Reform of the U.S. House of Representatives

District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2019

It did so in 1973 by establishing the Senate Select Committee on Presidential Campaign Activities, better known as the Watergate Committee, and then did so again in 1995 by establishing the Special Committee to Investigate … days of taking office, and to divest all financial interests that would pose a conflict of interest by “either converting those interests to cash or investments that satisfy ethics rules or placing those interests in a qualified