Case law

American Electric Power Service Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

675 F.2d 1226 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 1982

not discriminate against qualifying cogenerators or qualifying small power producers. … Accordingly, the Commission proposes that for energy generated by a new facility or by capacity installed after the date of issuance of these rules, a qualifying facility be permitted to sell its output at rates established

Billy Ray Kidwell v. Department of the Army, Board for Correction of Military Records

56 F.3d 279 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 13, 1995

The Board was clearly aware of the findings, going so far as to quote a portion of the SSA’s decision. See Board Decision at 4, in J.A. at 33. … As the Board put it, the evidence of record, combined with the total absence of any documentation which would indicate that an unfitting psychiatric disorder existed at the time, clearly established that the applicant was

Judd Gregg, U.S. Congressman v. William J. Barrett, Individually and in His Official Capacity as Acting Public Printer

771 F.2d 539 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 8, 1985

Martz, 182 F.Supp. 343, 347 (D.D.C.1960) (holding that Speech or Debate Clause immunizes insertion of materials into Record from action for defamation). … clearly be rectified by congressional action.

Northern Air Cargo v. United States Postal Service

674 F.3d 852 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 3, 2012

We do not think it is at all necessary to recount those arguments. 8 Suffice it to say that they hardly establish a plain meaning of the statutory sections. … Congress would have to specifically excuse an agency from providing the Cfeneiy-required contemporaneous explanation to clearly allow post hoc explanations by counsel in such a situation.

National Ass'n of Broadcasters v. Federal Communications Commission

740 F.2d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 1984

We therefore find little need to tarry long on the argument of the local broadcasters that the statute immunizes them from DBS competition. … provides that, if one political candidate is allowed to use a station, other qualified candidates must be given an equal opportunity to respond.

Department of the Air Force, 315th Airlift Wing v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

294 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 2002

As observed by Chairman Cabaniss, the physical contact and the apprehension of "some unpredictable blow" clearly distinguish this case from Flight Test Center, 53 F.L.R.A. 1455. … This boilerplate language establishes nothing.

Holcomb, Christine v. Powell, Donald

433 F.3d 889 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

Under this framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for and was qualified for an available position; (3) … Here, Holcomb attempts to establish not only that she is significantly better qualified than Del Valle, but also that her employer substantively misstated her qualifications.

American Iron and Steel Institute v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, American Petroleum Institute, Edison Electric Institute, Intervenors

886 F.2d 390 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 22, 1989

In addition, RCRA Subtitle D established a regulatory program for nonhazardous solid wastes, with primary enforcement by the states. … This section directs the agency to establish standards for treatment, storage or disposal of hazardous waste.

PanAmSat Corp v. FCC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 21, 1999

The plain terms of s 9 have already been quoted; they clearly do not require an exemption for Comsat, and there is no obvious hook in the language on which to hang an exemp- tion. … Both organizations are covered by the International Organi- zations Immunities Act, 22 U.S.C. s 288 et seq., and their exemption would be consistent with the many privileges, exemptions, and immunities such organizations

Kiser v. Huge

517 F.2d 1237 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 5, 1974

Clearly, the Fund has no contractual obligation to pay interest to members of the plaintiff class. … wage agreement then in effect and qualify for a pension when he ceases such work.

Miller v. Bond

641 F.2d 997 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 5, 1981

The district court held that though “[t]he denial of sick leave by the agency ... is not illegal per se because the burden was on the plaintiffs in the first instance to establish their entitlement to the leave .... … No agency has the discretion to refuse to grant sick leave to a qualified applicant. The question is how the agency can determine whether an applicant is qualified.

Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v. David D. Thomas, Acting Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

521 F.2d 941 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 23, 1975

While the Tort Claims Act is an abrogation of sovereign immunity to be liberally read when applicable, the retention of immunity in the act’s exceptions must also be respected. Indian Towing Co. v. … The “well-established distinction between the responsibility of the bidder and the responsiveness of the bid” is fully discussed in Northeast Construction Co. v.

Stewart, Sonya v. Evans, Donald L.

275 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 11, 2002

Second, the defendants maintain that Stewart lacked a legitimate expectation of privacy in the places they searched -- or at least that such an expectation was not clearly established -- and that the defendants are therefore … shielded from liability by a qualified immunity.

Freeman v. Lewis

675 F.2d 398 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 13, 1982

a Plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden of persuasion shifts to the defendant,” and its eleventh, that “Plaintiff has proven a prima facie case of discrimination. … Plaintiff has not unsuccessfully applied for a position for which she is qualified ... ”). .

Debra Stoe v. William Barr

960 F.3d 627 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 29, 2020

Under this framework, the plaintiff must first establish a prima facie case of discrimination by showing that: (1) she is a member of a protected class; (2) she applied for and was qualified for an available position; (3) … There is no dispute here that Stoe meets all of the criteria necessary to establish a prima facie case under § 2000e-16(a) and § 633a(a): (1) she is a woman over the age of forty; (2) she was qualified and applied for the

Balaji Doraiswamy v. Secretary of Labor. Honeywell Information Systems, Inc. v. The Secretary of Labor

555 F.2d 832 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 29, 1976

The administrative decisions are invariably accompanied by an indication of the underlying reasons, which consistently are stated clearly and sometimes elaborately. See Parts I, II supra. 75 . Camp v. … In our view, the Court should not look behind the record established before the agency and consider issues not raised below. Motions to Vacate at 3. Each of our orders posed three questions.

Safecard Services, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission

926 F.2d 1197 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 1991

Moreover, as the agency points out in its brief, “the staff had taken testimony from at least 15 witnesses, discussed granting immunity to another, and was preparing an advisory memorandum to the Commission on whether to … Without further information, it is impossible to know whether the agency’s claim of exemption exceeds the limits established in Sears and Bristol-Myers.

Acme Die Casting, a Division of Lovejoy Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

93 F.3d 854 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1996

In Daily News, the Board reviewed its precedents and clarified its governing principle that increases given “in a clearly established pattern” are to be distinguished from those given at “random irregular intervals”; the … In addition, the majority errs when it claims that “there is no evidence that the Company had ‘constrained’ itself by ‘established procedures’ or ‘fixed criteria’ for establishing the amounts of the increases.”

Debruin v. Debruin

195 F.2d 763 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 28, 1952

Under the circumstances, we are unable to say that the finding was 'clearly erroneous.' 4 Affirmed. 1 Obold v. Obold, 1947, 82 U.S.App.D.C. 268 , 163 F.2d 32, 33 . See also Turner v. … The American Psychiatric Association, concerned with the problem of the inadequately qualified psychiatric 'expert,' was largely motivated by this concern in the establishment of the American Board of Psychiatry and Neurology

The Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press v. United States Department of Justice (Two Cases)

816 F.2d 730 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 10, 1987

In other words, a statute that is claimed to qualify as an Exemption 3 withholding statute must, on its face, exempt matters from disclosure. … The government claims 28 U.S.C. § 534 qualifies as a withholding statute under Exemption 3.