Case law

Rita Bathiard v. Islamic Republic of Iran

923 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 2019

The statute establishes that foreign states are “presumptively immune from the jurisdiction of the federal and state courts, 28 U.S.C. § 1604, subject to several exceptions codified in §§ 1605, 1605A, 1605B, and 1607.” … The Supreme Court has held clearly and repeatedly that with the FSIA, Congress established “a comprehensive set of legal standards governing claims of immunity in every civil  30 action against

Murray, Lucy v. Gilmore, David

406 F.3d 708 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 6, 2005

As Gilmore concedes, she has done so: “(i) at the time [s]he was fired, [s]he was a member of the class protected by” Title VII and section 1983; “(ii) [s]he was otherwise qualified for the position” of Officer/Chief of the … Because none of Murray’s claims against Gilmore in his personal capacity remains alive, we leave for another day the issue of whether, as Gilmore argues, court- appointed receivers enjoy quasi-judicial immunity in their personal

Alfred Morris v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

702 F.2d 1037 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 1983

Because we also have some concern that the state of the pleadings in the district court has permitted the parties to proceed without adequately establishing either the jurisdictional or the substantive basis of this action … immunity, see Hodgers v.

Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Department of Justice

908 F.2d 1006 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 5, 1990

But — and this is the government’s problem — in order to qualify for the deliberative process privilege under Exemption 5, the government must demonstrate that the document is either inter-agency or intra-agency in nature … Tillamook County, — U.S.-, 110 S.Ct. 304, 310 , 107 L.Ed.2d 237 (1989) (stating that “ ‘absent a clearly expressed legislative intention to the contrary,’ the words of the statute are conclusive”) (quoting Consumer Product

Jesse Douglas v. Robert E. Hampton, Chairman of Civil Service Commission

512 F.2d 976 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 27, 1975

Appellants have produced two statistical analyses, of information furnished by the Commission, clearly establishing that whites perform much better than blacks. … The Commission’s authority in this case is clearly established by 5 U.S.C. §§ 3301 , 3304 and Exec. Order No. 10577, 3 C.F.R. 218 (1954-58 Comp.). See League of United Latin American Citizens v.

Shume v. Pearson Educ. Inc.

306 F. Supp. 3d 117 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 29, 2018

her as qualified. … Shume therefore cannot establish a "clear and indisputable right to relief" as required to justify an entitlement to mandamus. IV.

Camden Trust Company v. Ray M. Gidney, Comptroller of the Currency

301 F.2d 521 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 21, 1962

The Comptroller denied that application, correctly we think, 5 for clearly the application related to a branch, not a “new” bank. … If such an affiliate is to be denied status, Congress must clearly say so.

Gary Johnson v. Commission on Presidential De

869 F.3d 976 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 29, 2017

Second, he or she must have qualified to appear on “enough state ballots to. have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority in the 2012 general election.” Compl. ¶74,. … Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 509-10 , 95 S.Ct. 2197 , 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975) (examining the face of the complaint to determine whether a plaintiff has established Article III standing). IV.

Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639

839 F.2d 782 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 12, 1988

In sum, “[i]f a union delegates to an agent unrestricted authority going beyond the norms of union conduct, § 6 does not immunize it from liability for his illegal acts. … This clearly serves to fulfill the requirement of participation in the affairs of the company. *116 V.

Edison Pharmaceutical Company, Inc. v. Food And Drug Administration

513 F.2d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 1975

If the petitioner had been given a hearing, it is at least more likely that it could have made its point more clearly. … In so doing we are not establishing a new requirement for a full hearing whenever only a threshold issue is in dispute.

Transamer Leasing v. La Repub Venezuela

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 21, 2000

In this interlocutory appeal, Venezuela and the FIV argue that they are immune from suit upon all counts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. … First, the sale of a portion of its fleet as part of a massive restructuring hardly qualifies as CAVN's "day-to-day" business.

Transamer Leasing v. La Repub Venezuela

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 11, 2000

In this interlocutory appeal, Venezuela and the FIV argue that they are immune from suit upon all counts under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. … First, the sale of a portion of its fleet as part of a massive restructuring hardly qualifies as CAVN's "day-to-day" business.

In Re Motions of Dow Jones & Co.

142 F.3d 496 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 5, 1998

Superior Court (Press-Enterprise II), 478 U.S. 1, 12, 13 (1986), holding that a "qualified First Amendment right of access attaches to preliminary hearings in California"--that is, probable cause hearings "sufficiently … Cir. 1997) (action to compel production of subpoenaed documents which were withheld on basis of attorney-client privilege and work product immunity).

Murphy v. Internal Revenue Service

493 F.3d 170 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 2006

Cir. 2005) (agency “retains the immunity it is due as an arm of the federal sovereign”). … No. 65-767, at 9-10 (1918), the Government observes that the “report simply does not establish that Congress believed taxing compensatory personal injury damages would be unconstitutional.”

SoundExchange, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Bd.

904 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 18, 2018

An example of an interactive service is Spotify’s basic service.  5 The Board must “establish rates and terms” for the webcaster statutory license “that most clearly represent the rates … The Board thus used those benchmarks to establish its zone of reasonableness.

The Mead Corporation v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency

100 F.3d 152 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 12, 1996

EPA makes no claim either that the Coke Plant Site qualifies for listing under the agency’s risk-based criteria or that it has received state designation. … This circuit has clearly recognized the harmful effects of being linked to a site placed on the NPL. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Wash. v.

Communist Party of the United States of America v. Subversive Activities Control Board

223 F.2d 531 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 1955

This is too well established to require citation. We think these provisions clearly valid. … The argument is clearly without merit.

Sheikh v. Republic of the Sudan

308 F. Supp. 3d 46 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 30, 2018

First, the lawsuit is clearly untimely under governing law. And second, the defendant is the Islamic Republic of Iran. Should a court rule against Iran in absentia? … The plaintiffs relied on the "terrorism exception" embedded in the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act (FSIA), 28 U.S.C. §§ 1602 - 11, which eliminates immunity in cases seeking damages against designated state sponsors of terrorism

Bennett v. Islamic Republic of Iran

618 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 3, 2010

Diplomatic properties are generally immune from attachment. See 28 U.S.C. §§ 1609–1610. … The parenthetical phrase, the Bennetts argue, establishes that any “use” of a seized asset “as a rental property” invariably has a nondiplomatic purpose.

Tri-State Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

96 F.2d 564 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 16, 1938

The testimony admitted was clearly hearsay. It was a statement in effect of what others had told *567 Roderick. … In support of this assertion reference is made to the rule that whether a witness is qualified to testify as an expert is a question for the judge presiding at the trial and his decision thereon is conclusive unless clearly