Case law

Higgins v. Colvin

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2019

Statutory and Regulatory Background The Social Security Act provides disability insurance benefits and supplemental security income to qualifying individuals with a disability. … However, these cases do not establish such a broad proposition.

United States v. Watkins

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 2022

No. 84-922, at 2 (1955) (stating that the 1954 attack “clearly demonstrated” the need to increase the maximum penalties for seditious conspiracy). … The Multi-District Survey in this case, as in Haldeman, does not evidence, let alone establish, a presumption of prejudice.

Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

587 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 1984

The public interest clearly favors a preliminary injunction. … Plaintiffs have not presented qualified expert testimony eontradiciting these affidavits.

Sellmon v. Reilly

551 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 2008

However, the Supreme Court has clearly stated, “[a]bsent evidence to the contrary, [this Court] presúmete] the Board follows its statutory commands and internal policies in fulfilling its obligations.” … Therefore, an offender would be sentenced to a range (i.e., 15 years to life) and would be eligible for parole upon reaching the minimum sentence imposed by the judge minus good time credits. 4 .To clarify, eligibility "is established

National Security Counselors v. Central Intelligence Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2016

Thus, while the plaintiffs concede that the agency has properly withheld “names, email address, office locations, URLs, and the like,” they continue to contest the withholding of information qualifying as “organizational … “To qualify for the deliberative process privilege, an intra-agency memorandum must be both pre-decisional and deliberative.” 72 Abtew v. U.S.

Cooper v. DOJ

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2022

Under this exemption, the defendants need only show that the statute claimed qualifies as a withholding statute and “that the withheld material falls within the statute.” Larson v. U.S. … disclosure and not for use in any civil action or proceeding other than an action or proceeding commenced by the [ATF], or a review of such an action or proceeding . . . and all such data shall be immune

Mergentime Corp. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transportation Authority

400 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 28, 2005

WMATA’s Termination of M/P for Default Based on the record and the case law set forth above, the Court finds that WMATA has clearly established a prima facie basis for its termination decision, in light of the factors detailed … As the record clearly shows, M/P has not established that WMATA is responsible for its injuries given the effects of the Perini divorce, M/P's mismanagement of funds, and other problems solely attributable to M/P.

Klayman v. Judicial Watch, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2019

The Court had clearly signaled that such questions were off limits, and yet Klayman asked anyway. … The Court cannot clearly recall whether Klayman ever made this argument previously.

Hudson, Jr. v. American Federation of Government Employees

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2022

Supp. 3d at 14 (“It is thus irrelevant that Plaintiff's home local does not qualify as a labor organization. … Whether Hudson’s alleged violation of the AFGE Constitution was clearly the reason for his removal is a close question made even closer by his disorganized briefing.

Paracha v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2020

Paracha’s statements, clearly labelling any of her own opinions and usually placing them at the end of her reports. Decl. of Janelle Miller (“Miller Decl.”), JE 70, at 49 5S, 11, 20, Mr. … Paracha warns that, “if minor financial support by charitable organizations to the Taliban is enough to qualify as substantial support of terrorism . . . almost all Pakistani citizens would be subject to perpetual detention

Columbia Hospital for Women Medical Center, Inc. v. NCRIC, Inc. (In Re Columbia Hospital for Women Medical Center, Inc.)

461 B.R. 648 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 2011

NCRIC contends that judgments, unlike claims that have yet to be reduced to judgment, are immune from the defense of champerty. … As observed in Moore’s Federal Practice, Rule 54(c) permits the awarding of all available relief on a claim when liability on the claim has been established....

Powell v. O'Malley

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 2025

However, when a claimant has additional limitations beyond those contemplated by the grids, the ALJ cannot rely on the grids alone to establish non-disability. Id. … claimant’s limitations to the expert can serve as grounds for reversal because it “undermines the expert’s testimony that a claimant can perform other work,” an instrumental aspect of determining whether the claimant qualifies

State of Alabama v. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2023

The 2007 Public Notice clearly falls outside this umbrella. See Cottonwood Env’t L. Ctr. v. U.S. Sheep Experiment Station, 827 F. … It is established that the Corps operates projects in the ACT Basin “pursuant to ‘specific’ and ‘general’ authorities established by Congress.” In re ACF Basin, 554 F. Supp. 3d at 1288.

Jones v. Nvr Incorporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2022

Nothing in this filing indicates that any of these three individuals would be qualified to testify as to any “scientific, technical, or specialized knowledge.” Fed. R. Evid. 701. … The Court sua sponte struck Plaintiff’s Opposition to Defendant’s Motion for Summary Judgment due to Plaintiff’s failure to comply with Local Civil Rule 7(h) and the Court’s [6] Order Establishing Procedures.

Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2016

Nor could the Corps have complied with the full Advisory Council process, which is clearly designed for project-specific determinations. … As previously explained, 204 sites were subject to PCN authorizations and thus were clearly permitted by the Corps. Those sites are in play.

Jacobs v. Reliance Standard Life Insurance Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2023

Supp. 2d 9, 20 (D.D.C. 1999) (“Courts clearly have the authority to construe the language of the contract de novo where the denial of benefits does not involve any discretionary authority on the part of the plan administrator … The second paragraph in the Transfer of Insurance Coverage section similarly requires the insured to “otherwise qualify as an Eligible Person” “as of the policy’s effective date.”

Center for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2023

It establishes “uniform procedures” that agen- cies must follow “when administering public rights established in other statutes,” here, the ESA. See Navab-Safavi v. Broadcasting Bd. of Governors, 650 F. … Plaintiff has failed to establish that the notice-and-comment process was defective.

Africare, Inc. v. Xerox Complete Document Solutions Maryland, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2020

Each of them qualifies as a contract. … Its size and budget of $48 million in 2015, although a drop from its immediate past, was clearly bigger than many merchants, much less a private consumer.

Family Federal Savings & Loan v. Davis (In Re Davis)

172 B.R. 437 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 1994

Contribution Claim While Family Federal is not entitled to a compensatory or punitive damage claim against Manning, the evidence clearly establishes that Manning’s breach of his fiduciary duties, in releasing the loan proceeds … If recovery were not available to the Davises and to National Mortgage from Family Federal, they would clearly recover against Manning.

Isiwele v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

85 F. Supp. 3d 337 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2015

Exemption 6 allows agencies to 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). … In order for particular records to qualify for this exemption, the agency must first demonstrate that the documents were compiled for law enforcement purposes. See Rural Hous. Alliance v. U.S.