Case law

National Association of Retired Federal Employees v. Constance Horner, Director, Office of Personnel Management

879 F.2d 873 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 13, 1989

We are thus left with circuit precedent establishing only that the disclosure of names and addresses is not inherently and always a significant threat to the privacy of those listed; whether it is a significant or a de minimis … probability that the disclosure will lead to the threatened invasion: one need only assume that business people will not overlook an opportunity to get cheaply from the Government what otherwise comes dearly, a list of qualified

Gaujacq v. EDF, Inc.

601 F.3d 565 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 9, 2010

She was clearly told that Nadal would be President of EDFINA and that she would need to prepare a new mission for herself. … If the plaintiff establishes a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the employer to produce a legitimate, nondiscriminatory reason for its actions.

United States v. Salahmand

651 F.3d 21 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 22, 2011

We concluded that the court did not clearly err in finding that Smith’s MRDDA clients were harmed by the centers’ substandard treatment. … In short, they did not qualify as “victims” under any definition.

Secretary of Labor v. KC Transport, Inc.

77 F.4th 1022 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2023

If a “mine” is so clearly defined under subsections (A)–(B), what then to make of subsection (C)? … This argument is clearly rebutted by the record, revealing the Commission found KC Transport “was not an operator under section 3(d)” because it “was not performing services in a mine[.]” J.A. 165.

Women Strike for Peace v. Walter J. Hickel, Secretary of the Interior

420 F.2d 597 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 1969

The record does not clearly set forth the basis on which the Park Service denied the permission requested by appellant for its particular display. … Such use of the streets and public places, has, from ancient times, been a part of the privileges, immunities, rights, and liberties of citizens.” Opinion of Justice Roberts in Hague v.

United States v. Charles Matthews

419 F.2d 1177 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 10, 1969

It must definitely be clearly serious and if not occurring immediately then it must be very imminent. Now, what is meant by an assemblage engaged in such a disturbance? … The other members of the assemblage need not be identified by name or their precise number established by the evidence.

Faic Securities, Inc. v. United States

768 F.2d 352 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 1985

We do not think a notation of the a fortiori character of the case qualifies as an acknowledgment of the requisite nature of the element that makes it a fortiori. … The District Court held that the appellees’ interests fall within the "zone of interests to be protected or regulated" because ”[h]ere plaintiffs interests are clearly being regulated," 595 F.Supp. at 75 n. 1.

Edward William Hull, A/K/A Edward Hull v. Eaton Corporation Edward William Hull Travelers Insurance Company v. Eaton Corporation

825 F.2d 448 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 4, 1987

We note at the outset that there is no District of Columbia case clearly setting out the necessary elements of a D.C. strict liability claim. Compare Fisher v. … Exum, at 1161 (reversing directed verdict on claim that french fryer was negligently designed, even though plaintiff lacked qualified expert, because defendant admitted in an interrogatory that it marketed a protective device

Harold E. Carter v. William Bennett, Secretary, U.S. Department of Education

840 F.2d 63 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 19, 1988

We review this finding under the clearly erroneous standard. The nature and requirements of Carter's job were not disputed. … As we discussed above, our review of this application of law to fact is not limited by the clearly erroneous standard.

The Committee for Nuclear Responsibility, Inc. v. Glenn T. Seaborg

463 F.2d 788 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 3, 1971

But plaintiffs indicated clearly that they seek no such secrets, and the District Court’s order explicitly provides that the government is not required to produce any documents or parts of documents which contain such secret … In our view, this claim of absolute immunity for documents in possession of an executive department or agency, upon the bald assertion of its head, is not sound law. *793 There are some eases that hold that the court may

Tucker v. Commissioner

676 F.3d 1129 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 20, 2012

trigger,” 204 F.3d at 1133, to mean that such an inquiry may but need not be the start of an Appointments Clause analysis.  8 The degree of discretion enjoyed by the officeholder is clearly … We also find no abuse of discretion in Appeals’s apparently finding Tucker’s day trading to be more speculative than, e.g., buying or refinancing a home, and therefore finding the former and not the latter to qualify as “

Jack Faucett Associates, Inc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Co.

744 F.2d 118 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 11, 1984

The Restatement clearly articulates this rationale: f. Inconsistent prior determinations. … That ruling had sufficient elements of substance and finality to qualify as an “inconsistent determination.”

Dow v. Ickes

123 F.2d 909 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 4, 1941

The regulations must be taken as establishing his judgment in this respect. … Appellant is qualified, but he is late. The existing allocations have been made to applicants whose applications long antedate that of appellant.

United States v. Judah Robert Lyons

706 F.2d 321 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 26, 1983

Under these conditions, the Government insists, Lyons’ “expectation of privacy ... was qualified at best.” Brief at 15-16 n. 12. … Clearly, however, there were no such “exigent circumstances” in this case.

Matos v. Devos

317 F. Supp. 3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 13, 2018

Ex. 15 (April 8, 2014 email). 7 The evidence also establishes that these duties could not be adequately performed away from the office. … The Department was clearly justified in requiring Matos to provide such documentation, particularly in light of her previous insistence that only 100% telework would suffice as an accommodation.

District 6, United Mine Workers of America v. United States Department of the Interior Board of Mine Operations Appeals

562 F.2d 1260 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 14, 1977

The issue before this court is thus quite clearly stated. … Referential and qualifying words.

Republican National Committee, National Republican Senatorial Committee and National Republican Congressional Committee v. Federal Election Commission

76 F.3d 400 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 11, 1996

It is not reasonable for the Commission to declare that only strict adherence to its selected format will qualify as a political committee’s best efforts. … The prescribed statement is clearly misleading in this context.

United States v. Frank Baker

693 F.2d 183 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 1982

Not only is this a most unlikely interpretation of the instruction, but also the judge on two other occasions clearly stated that every element of an offense must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. … a regularly conducted business activity, and if it was the regular practice of that business activity to make the memorandum, report, record, or data compilation, all as shown by the testimony of the custodian or other qualified

Horton v. United States

15 App. D.C. 310 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 25, 1899

What the accused is entitled to is a trial by an impartial jury duly qualified and impaneled to. sit thereon. That the appellant had such a jury is not denied. … In its definition of insanity as a defense against conviction of crime it follows the established authorities, and has application to the facts of the case. See Taylor v. United States, 7 App. D. C. 27, 43 ; Davis v.

Wigfall v. Office of Compliance

332 F. Supp. 3d 159 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 18, 2018

Thus, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. Moran v. U.S. Capitol Police Bd. , 820 F.Supp.2d 48 , 53 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Lujan v. … And Wigfall's counseling and mediation request documentation clearly shows that she did, in fact, raise her failure-to-accommodate claim both *168 times. See Pl.'s Opp'n Ex.