Case law

American Nat. Ins. Co. v. FDIC

642 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 24, 2011

(“Congress did not intend FIRREA’s claims process to immunize the receiver, but rather wanted to require exhaustion of the receivership claims before going to court.” (quoting Hudson United Bank v. … The suit appellants press, however, is clearly distinguishable from that in Village of Oakwood.

United States v. Donald E. Lukens

114 F.3d 1220 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 3, 1997

It also used the evidence to establish the background pattern of the relationship between Lukens and his alleged co-conspirators. … An act need not be independently illegal in order to qualify as an overt act for the purposes of a conspiracy charge. Braverman v.

Dorothy L. Milton v. Casper Weinberger, Secretary of Defense

696 F.2d 94 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 20, 1982

To apply Day before liability has been established would be contrary to the well-established principle that the ultimate burden of persuasion remains at all times with the plaintiff. Day v. … Mathews by offering clear and convincing evidence that there was only one job opening and that the other applicant was more qualified.

Wjiv-Tv, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Wsav, Inc., Intervenor

231 F.2d 725 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 12, 1956

After comparative hearing, the Commission found both applicants to be legally, technically and otherwise qualified, that intervenor is financially qualified and that, comparatively, “The public interest, convenience and necessity … Such a construction has long been established, in many fields, in many jurisdictions, and is well known to Congress.

American Jewish Congress v. Cyrus R. Vance

575 F.2d 939 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 21, 1978

taxpayers, and persons of the Jewish religion, ancestry, and identity. 20 Two of the named plaintiffs have also allegedly suffered distinct economic disadvantage because of defendants’ actions. 21 As citizens per se, plaintiffs clearly … Plaintiffs have also failed in their complaint to establish standing as taxpayers. In Flast v.

Sunday Iyoha v. Architect of the Capitol

927 F.3d 561 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 2, 2019

III Here, the Architect has proffered a legitimate explanation for not selecting Iyoha as Branch Chief: “a panel of interviewers unanimously agreed that he was not the most qualified candidate.” Architect Br. 18. … Given Iyoha’s claim that the selection process was pretextual and infused with discrimination against people with accents, Clark’s memo explaining the panelists’ decision is clearly relevant, and the district court erred

Media Access Project, People for the American Way, and Union of Concerned Scientists v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America

883 F.2d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 29, 1989

Section 552(a)(4)(A)(i) plainly delegates authority to establish fee schedules and guidelines to each agency and authority to establish uniform fee schedule guidelines to OMB. … See Commission Brief at 36 (PFAW and UCS, for purposes of regular publication of a newsletter or periodical, would qualify for reduced fees).

Liberty Mutual Insurance Company v. Travelers Indemnity Company

78 F.3d 639 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 1996

Those conditions are clearly met here. … Liberty clearly had such a duty.

Bush v. District of Columbia

595 F.3d 384 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 23, 2010

The grant of summary judgment in favor of the District was clearly correct. … Plaintiffs quite clearly failed to satisfy their obligation under Rule 56(e).

Bloche v. Dep't of Def.

370 F. Supp. 3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 29, 2019

A document qualifies if it is both pre-decisional and deliberative. E.g., Judicial Watch, Inc. v. FDA , 449 F.3d 141 , 151 (D.C. Cir. 2006). … First, to establish that the documents at issue were "compiled for law enforcement purposes," the agency must "establish a rational nexus between the investigation and one of the agency's law enforcement duties," as well

Cherokee County Cogeneration Partners, LLC v. FERC

40 F.4th 638 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 15, 2022

While we clearly have jurisdiction over the petitions, we lack authority to consider Petitioner’s arguments because they were not adequately presented in its petition for rehearing. … “The comparability requirement is the requirement, established in Order No. 2003, that the transmission provider must pay the interconnection customer for reactive power . . . if the transmission provider pays its own or

Russell L. Dawson v. Contractors Transport Corp. Magazine Bros. Construction Corp.

467 F.2d 727 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 13, 1972

Singleton was immune from suit by Dawson, who, as an employee of Singleton, was remitted as to Singleton to the workmen’s compensation laws. … The issue here to be tried was not the established Murray credit, itself, but negligence.

Ark Kee Lee and Oliva Lee v. Marlene C. Wheeler

810 F.2d 303 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 10, 1987

We are thus presented with a contract action concerning what is clearly a Maryland contract. In this situation, we hold that Mary *305 land law governs. … in excess of $100 arising out of the ownership, maintenance or use of a motor vehicle in this State where the identity of the motor vehicle and of the operator and owner thereof cannot be ascertained or it is established

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. 136 C.

Comcast Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission

600 F.3d 642 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 6, 2010

The Commission relies principally on section 230(b), part of a provision entitled “Protection for private blocking and screening of offensive material,” 47 U.S.C. § 230, that grants civil immunity for such blocking to providers … Our statement does nothing more than clearly and accurately describe what the Commission actually did, i.e., supply a policy justification for its decision.

Arnold v. Thompson & Spear Co.

279 F. 307 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 6, 1922

Clearly it was not com *311 petent as a copy of the files of the Bureau of Yards and Docks, because not certified as required by the statute. … the proper way to establish its performance; but it was not.

Jihad Dhiab v. Donald J. Trump

852 F.3d 1087 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 2017

Here the government established that the recordings of Dhiab were properly classified as “SECRET.” … The government’s interest in ensuring safe and secure military operations clearly overcomes any qualified First Amendment right of access. Rear Admiral Richard W.

Dyker Bldg. Co., Inc. v. United States, to Use of Parreco United States, to Use of Parreco v. Dyker Bldg. Co., Inc.

182 F.2d 85 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 27, 1950

Further, “defendant clearly intended that no change orders of any kind would be recognized by them”, unless in . writing. … With two pertinent figures thus established, or conceded, the finding as to amount of borrow fill required follows as a matter of arithmetic.

George Peter Klissas v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

361 F.2d 529 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 16, 1966

reviewed the memorandum and the opposition thereto and are of the opinion that petitioner’s request that the case be remanded to permit the filing of an application for suspension of deportation should be denied since he clearly … does not qualify under the terms of the statute. 8 U.S.C. § 1254 (a) (1) (2) (1964), as amended, 79 Stat. 918 (1965) (Appendix).

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

392 F.2d 483 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 31, 1968

Waterman Steamship Corp., 333 U.S. 103 , 68 S.Ct. 431 , 92 L.Ed. 568 (1948), which extended the Section 1006 immunity from judicial scrutiny to all C.A.B. orders subject to Presidential review. … It is established doctrine that courts may, in appropriate cases, bypass jurisdictional issues with a decision on the merits.