Sorry, you need to enable JavaScript to visit this website.

DC

Washington, DC
 

DC Agency Top Menu

Publications

Request for records related to an incident on a specified date. Because the request was similar to a previous request MPD received, MPD initially ignored the request as duplicative. The request was further delayed due to administrative error. MPD was ordered to disclose its response, and the…

2016-004

Request for records related to health insurance contracts. DISB’s response was remanded for performing an inadequate search based on the definition of the “public record.”

2016-005

Request for records related to a property. DOEE discovered that its disclosure was not processed due to the large size of the files. DOEE re-sent the records and the appeal was dismissed as moot. 

2016-006

Request for records related to the investigation of a complaint. The appeal was dismissed as moot because UDC released responsive records after the appeal was filed.

2016-007

Request for records related to the licensure of a physician. The appeal, based on the adequacy of DOH’s search, was dismissed as moot because DOH found responsive records while the appeal was pending. 

2016-008

Request for records related to complaints against a police officer. The decisions by the MPD the OPC were affirmed on the basis of personal privacy interests in records compiled for law enforcement purposes.

2016-009

Request for records from DC Superior Court. The appeal was dismissed based on lack of jurisdiction. 

2016-010

Request for records related to a transportation assistance program. DHFC’s decision was largely affirmed on the basis of protection of trade secrets and commercial or financial information. The DHFC’s decision was partially remanded to disclose a document that did not appear to contain a trade…

2016-011

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

2016-012

Request for records related to the provision of case management services. DHCF’s response was affirmed in part on the basis of protection of trade secrets and commercial or financial information. DHCF’s response was remanded in part to disclose a document that did not appear to contain…

2016-013
Subscribe to Publications List