Case law

In Re Swine Flu Immunization Products Liability Litigation. Linda Kenneda v. United States

880 F.2d 1439 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 8, 1989

The Government, in its motion for dismissal, clearly did, for it sought dismissal pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(1) (“lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter”). … jurisdictional” statute establishing the time for filing with the agency.

Kirwa v. U.S. Dep't of Def.

285 F. Supp. 3d 21 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 25, 2017

"One day of qualifying service is sufficient in establishing eligibility." USCIS Policy Manual, Vol. 12, Part I, Ch. 3, § A. … honorably because the service did not qualify as active-duty service.

Overseas Education Ass'n v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

824 F.2d 61 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 1987

The Authority’s argument is that this immunity extends to both FLRA decisions challenged in the two review petitions now before us. … The Authority’s position is that, to qualify for an award of back pay under the Back Pay Act, the union must satisfy both parts of a two-part -test.

United States v. Hill, William D.

131 F.3d 1056 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 23, 1997

Mathis, 963 F.2d 399 (D.C.Cir.1992). 6 As this court noted in Mathis, Taylor established that “when deciding whether a prior conviction qualifies as a predicate offense, the sentencing court must look only to the statutory … In reviewing a denial of a motion to suppress, "[w]e review the trial court’s findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard and its legal conclusions de novo." See United States v.

Moore v. U.S. Dep't of State

351 F. Supp. 3d 76 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 9, 2019

That language clearly forecloses a hostile work environment claim premised on events before November 26, 2013, when the agreement was executed, see id. ¶ 11. … But if Wise presented a borderline case, then Moore's allegations clearly fall short, as they lack the key elements of insult, ridicule, and exclusion that pushed Wise over the edge. See id. at 126-27 .

Guardian Federal Savings and Loan Association v. Federal Savings and Loan Insurance Corporation

589 F.2d 658 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 13, 1978

We find that in certain particulars the regulations in this case are clearly interpretative in nature. … Nor is there merit to the argument that such specific and detailed requirements cannot qualify as a “general” statement of policy.

Cooper Laboratories, Inc. v. Commissioner, Federal Food and Drug Administration

501 F.2d 772 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 1974

The 1962 legislation itself provides that the necessary controlled studies shall be made “by experts qualified by scientific training and experience to evaluate the effectiveness of the drug involved.” 21 U.S.C. § 355 (d) … Where the order clearly invoked the substance of a regulatory provision, we did not demand chapter and verse citations.

Ellen L. Ray and William H. Schaap v. Stansfield Turner, Director Central Intelligence Agency

587 F.2d 1187 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 1978

Before the court orders in camera inspection, the Government should be given the opportunity to establish by means of testimony or detailed affidavits that the documents are clearly exempt from disclosure. … If the government is unable to establish that the material withheld meets all the legal requirements necessary to qualify for one of the nine statutory exemptions, the material must be released. 62 If the court sustains the

Richard Krodel v. Andrew J. Young, in His Official Capacity as Associate Commissioner, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration Richard Krodel v. Andrew J. Young, in His Official Capacity as Associate Commissioner, Office of Hearings and Appeals, Social Security Administration Department of Health and Human Services and Margaret M. Heckler, Secretary in Her Official Capacity

748 F.2d 701 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 20, 1984

The question of discriminatory intent, moreover, is a finding of fact subject to the "clearly erroneous" standard of review established in Rule 52(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. … The district court held that Krodel established a prima facie case by demonstrating (1) that he belongs to the statutorily protected age group (40-70 years), (2) that he was, by the government's own admission, qualified for

Bronner v. Duggan

317 F. Supp. 3d 284 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 6, 2018

Under this prerogative, Congress authorized federal district courts to hear cases meeting the amount-in-controversy and diversity requirements established by 28 U.S.C. § 1332 . … Read together, these cases suggest that a director's conduct may rise to the level of an intent to harm the director's organization or its members where the conduct is in service of a purpose that is clearly harmful.

Singh v. George Washington University School of Medicine & Health Sciences

667 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 9, 2011

Cir. 1977), is not clearly erroneous and that finding alone dooms her case. … Accordingly, because the district court did not clearly err in finding that Singh failed to establish that her asserted impairment caused her asserted learning limitation, we affirm the judgment of the district court.

Doe v. United States Postal Service

317 F.3d 339 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 7, 2003

The letter also stated: Your condition may qualify you to be covered by the Family and Medical Leave Policies. … But Neff’s testimony also established that Tahir had other ways of obtaining the information, such as retrieving the file cabinet keys from Neff’s unlocked desk.

United States v. Alfonzo Forte

81 F.3d 215 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 16, 1996

The court accepted his guilty plea, as both accounts contained facts sufficient to establish his guilt. … Circuit law at the time of sentencing did nothing to establish the sentencing court’s view as clear error. Quite the reverse.

Virginia Department of Medical Assistance Services v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

678 F.3d 918 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 8, 2012

Subsection (h), quoted supra p. 4, establishes in its three separate subsections three discrete criteria that specific services must meet to qualify as “inpatient psychiatric hospital services” eligible for medical assistance … There is no indication, that the Congress intended to alter the exception’s established scope at that time.

United States ex rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.

293 F. Supp. 3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 1, 2018

Rice, which he was not able to clearly recall. After Mr. … Davis might be using the term "expert" colloquially, and did not understand the implications of the legal term of art under the Federal Rules and as established by the United States Supreme Court.

Lodge 1858, American Federation of Government Employees v. Thomas O. Paine, Administrator, National Aeronautics and Space Administration

436 F.2d 882 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 21, 1970

to achieving standing. 33 *889 Appellants have not pointed to any specific source, nor have I been able to detect any, from whence one could say, without assaying the case on the merits, that such a right in their favor clearly … Unlike the District Court, see note 24, supra, I detect no encounter with the doctrines of judicial non-reviewability and sovereign immunity.

American Postal Workers Union, Afl-Cio v. United States Postal Service, American Postal Workers Union, Afl-Cio, 480-481 Area Local v. United States Postal Service

830 F.2d 294 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 2, 1987

Existing doctrine grants no such immunity. … The Supreme Court noted that the advertisement as a whole, "as an expression of grievance and protest on one of the major public issues of our time, would seem clearly to qualify for the constitutional protection" claimed

Plains Radio Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

175 F.2d 359 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 4, 1949

In its final Memorandum Opinion and Order, the Commission said: “The Decision clearly shows that petitioner was not disqualified because of newspaper ownership, but that this fact along wdth others going to the comparative … But we are not here considering bars to licenses; the case is a comparative consideration of two applicants, both qualified.

Julius G. Getman v. National Labor Relations Board

450 F.2d 670 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 31, 1971

Cross-motions for summary judgment were filed, and the District Court found on January 21, 1971 that the Board had failed to satisfy its burden of establishing that the requested information was exempted. … A request by less well qualified applicants, or applicants with a less carefully designed or more disruptive study would require a new balancing and might be found to involve a “clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy

Maryann Paisley v. Central Intelligence Agency

712 F.2d 686 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 22, 1983

Those conditions of transfer clearly indicated a congressional intent to retain control of the documents. 37 . … In a case involving a Justice Department challenge to a subpoena issued by a House subcommittee, this court summarized existing precedent on the Speech or Debate Clause: What the cases establish is that the immunity from