Case law

Thompson v. Washington

497 F.2d 626 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 20, 1973

Finding no merit in the Government's claim of sovereign immunity, 25 we proceed to examine the specific claims raised in this litigation. II. … Kelly, the Court noted that welfare benefits are a matter of 'statutory entitlement for persons qualified to receive them.' 397 U.S. 254, 262 , 90 S.Ct. 1011, 1017 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970).

Pacific Seafarers, Inc. v. Pacific Far East Line, Inc.

404 F.2d 804 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 24, 1969

Their actions clearly can be regulated by Congress. … But I am clearly of opinion that such is not the true sense of the word, as used in the 32d section.

National Homeopathic Hospital Ass'n of District of Columbia v. Britton, Deputy Com'r

147 F.2d 561 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 8, 1945

Bnt “disability” is used in some twenty other instances in § 908 itself, and in each instance it clearly carries its specially defined sense. … We think Congress would have used a different word in § 908(f), or would have added a qualifying phrase, if it had intended to refer to incapacity or defect from whatever cause and not merely to “disability” as defined.

John Doe v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary, Department of Defense

820 F.2d 1275 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 1987

It has established an administrative rule mandating that revocation of SCI clearance automatically results in dismissal. … The remaining claims raised by appellant in this case, including his constitutional claims, may also be subject to the argument that they are immune from judicial review by either § 7532 or 50 U.S.C. § 835 . Cf.

Caires v. Fed. Deposit Ins. Corp.

298 F. Supp. 3d 79 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 9, 2018

The Court will first address the declaratory-judgment claims, as these are most clearly articulated by Plaintiff and most thoroughly rebutted by Defendant. … Finally, to the extent Plaintiff's claims sound in misrepresentation and fraud, they are barred by sovereign immunity, which the Government has not waived for this category of claims. See United States v.

JOHNSON v. MATTHEWS, United States Marshal

182 F.2d 677 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 1950

allegations. 17 We do not deviate from that rule or qualify its unequivocal terms. … Pennsylvania, in the Third Circuit, does not appear to have been immune from these allegations. In Commonwealth v.

Neighborhood Tv Company, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Microband Corporation of America, Sin, Inc., Spanish International Communications Corporation, National Association of Public Television Stations, International Broadcasting Network, Intervenors. Los Angeles County Sheriff's Department v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, International Broadcasting Network, Intervenor

742 F.2d 629 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 17, 1984

While we do not doubt that the interim procedures helped frustrate Neighborhood's plans to establish its television network, Neighborhood was not substantially denied any opportunity to compete for a license with other qualified … Clearly, such an attack could not prevail. The FCC instituted the tiered system in response to the deluge of low power television and translator applications it received.

United States v. Cicero

22 F.3d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 1994

The pretrial services reports at issue in this case, by contrast, clearly qualify for the business records exception. … The proof need not establish with certainty the exact date of the alleged offense[s].

Lucy Johnson v. William Brock, in His Official Capacity as Acting Secretary of the Department of Labor

810 F.2d 219 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 20, 1987

In September 1981, she applied for, and qualified for, a “GS-13 vacancy for a contract specialist, but on October 5,1981, the position announcement was cancelled.” … In reviewing a district court’s determination of an appropriate remedy for discriminatory conduct, we look to “whether the District Court was ‘clearly erroneous’ in its factual findings and whether it ‘abused’ its traditional

Abraham v. Gendlin

172 F.2d 881 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 7, 1949

After qualifying testimony by appellee, the court allowed him to give expert testimony as to what it would have cost per unit to clean garments with a machine in the shop, exclusive of his labor. … The testimony of salesmen that preceding the accident appellee was examining cleaning machines and negotiating for a purchase was clearly admissible as corroborative of his own testimony that he was about to buy one when

Center for Taxpayer Rights v. IRS

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 8, 2026

have established that they are likely to succeed on the merits of their APA challenge. … And the IRS has identified no reason to think that the district court clearly erred in either assessment.

Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission

627 F.2d 392 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 13, 1980

Identifying details ... do not so qualify in and of themselves”); Getman v. … Thus, in the instant case, had the Board clearly sought only a list of trade source interviewees, this information would probably have not been immunized by Exemption 4.

United States v. Federal Maritime Commission

694 F.2d 793 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 16, 1982

It guarantees FMC scrutiny of maritime-related conduct, but it also immunizes approved agreements from antitrust strictures. … Moreover, “once an antitrust violation is established,” this burden cannot be satisfied “unless other evidence in the record detracts from the weight of this factor.” Id. at 246 , 88 S.Ct. at 1010.

Max Reissner v. William P. Rogers, as Attorney General of the United States and Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, and Ivy Baker Priest, Treasurer of the United States, William P. Rogers, as Attorney General of the United States and Successor to the Alien Property Custodian, and Ivy Baker Priest, Treasurer of the United States v. Max Reissner

276 F.2d 506 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 10, 1960

Rogers, supra. 21 We conclude that the District Court was not justified in reversing the finding as clearly erroneous. … If such a claim were not a debt for purposes of German law, it would indeed be anomalous that it could qualify as a debt for purposes of Section 34.

United States v. District of Columbia, District of Columbia v. Landmark Services, Inc.

571 F.2d 651 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 29, 1977

This immunity from local regulation, however, was held— in the absence of further specific Congressional authorization —to be limited to areas, such as District of Columbia parks, which are under the “exclusive charge and … Therefore, it concluded that the shuttle service between the Mall (a Federal area) and the Stadium (a non-Federal area “visitor facility”) would qualify as “transportation by the United *656 States” under Section 804. 29

John v. Norris v. District of Columbia

737 F.2d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 1984

Department of Social Services, 436 U.S. 658 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), and of qualified immunity. … They may be factors bearing on some kind of qualified immunity with a subjective component. They may bear on availability of punitive damages.

Paulette Mendes-Silva v. United States of America

980 F.2d 1482 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 8, 1993

She had been working as an international conference interpreter, and she obtained the immunizations in preparation for an upcoming assignment in India. Ms. … Chevron Chemical Co., “a cause-effect relationship need not be clearly established by animal or epidemiological studies before a doctor can testify that, in his opinion, such a relationship exists.”

Richey Manor, Inc., D/B/A Richey Manor Nursing Home v. Richard Schweiker, Secretary of Health and Human Services

684 F.2d 130 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 30, 1982

(“VOA Care”), a not-for-profit corporation established by a religious organization to provide health care to the sick and infirm. … Deference is hardly necessary here, however, because the Secretary’s decision is clearly correct.

United States v. Jeffrey I. Cohen

733 F.2d 128 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 4, 1984

On that basis, the present legislation does not qualify, since we find it totally devoid of those characteristics invoking strict scrutiny. … V 1981)) (establishing a national minimum wage for all employees in interstate commerce).

WHW Enterprises, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

753 F.2d 1132 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 5, 1985

The 15-mile rule was clearly designed to promote flexibility and encourage applications from communities other than the assigned community. … In addition, the inaccuracy at issue in Scott & Davis was clearly immaterial; the Board found that there had never been any doubt that the applicant was financially qualified. Id. at 1099.