Washington, DC

Bookmark and Share

Publications

E.g., 07/22/2024
E.g., 07/22/2024
02/08/2018

Request for records related to public housing. The appeal was remanded, as DHCD’s search was found to be inadequate.

2016-91
02/08/2018

Request for commercial office building assessments. OTR’s decision was affirmed in part, as it related to deliberative documents withheld. OTR’s decision was remanded in part, as it related to commercial and tax information, to provide a more substantive explanation of its...

2016-89
02/07/2018

Request for resume and application of an employee. DCRA’s decision was remanded because of the overriding public interest in the resume and application information provided by a successful applicant for a government position.

2016-81
02/07/2018

Request for investigatory records related to the death of a child. MPD’s decision was affirmed in part, as it related to the attorney-client privilege and the investigatory record privilege. MPD’s decision was remanded in part, as the claimed assertion of the deliberative process...

2016-84
02/07/2018

Request for administrative orders. The appeal was dismissed as moot because OEA provided a response after the appeal was filed.

2016-82
02/07/2018

Request for administrative filings. The appeal was dismissed as moot because OAH provided a response after the appeal was filed.

2016-86
02/07/2018

Request for responses to FOIA requests. The appeal was dismissed as moot because DCRA provided a response after the appeal was filed.

 

2016-83
02/06/2018

Request for teacher-level administrative datasets of demographics for charter and public school teachers. OSSE’s decision was remanded on the grounds that it maintained the requested data and providing the data would not amount to the creation of a new record.

2016-76
02/06/2018

Request for surveillance and investigation records related to requester. MPD’s response was affirmed on the basis that it conducted an adequate search and no responsive records were found.

2016-79
02/06/2018

Request for surveillance cameras and computer login information. DCPL’s decision was affirmed in part because use of library material by patrons is protected from disclosure by statute, and reasonable redaction of the footage was not feasible for the agency. DCPL’s decision was...

2016-77

Pages

Subscribe to Publications List