Case law

United States v. Valdes

437 F.3d 1276 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 24, 2006

But in Muntain we clearly rejected the idea that such a use of government resources was in itself an “official act” within the meaning of § 201(a)(3). … See also § 201(c)(1)(B) (containing the same qualifying clause).

Hecht v. Pro-Football, Inc.

570 F.2d 982 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 20, 1977

The trial judge effectively •instructed the jury that the relevant geographic market was the nation as a whole. 13 We hold that his instruction was clearly erroneous as a matter of law. … We reversed and remanded for trial on the merits, concluding that Congress had evinced no intention to confer such immunity. .

United States v. Kennedy, Jimmie Lee

133 F.3d 53 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 16, 1998

Appellant would accordingly have this court interpret Taylor to mean that if one possible way to violate a criminal statute could be nonviolent, all statutory violations would be immunized from the three-strikes law and … Thus, the district court's finding that service by mail occurred was not clearly erroneous.

Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

580 F.2d 623 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 2, 1978

FTC brief at 19 n*. .FTC Brief at 19 n.*, 25 n.*** (expressing a qualified acceptance of the 70% test for market dominance, while rejecting a counterpresumption of effective competition). . … The new provision is more specific as to the terms that an agreement must contain in order for carriers acting under it to qualify for antitrust immunity. . United States v.

Communications Workers of America Lyle Wingate v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company American Telephone and Telegraph Pension Plan

40 F.3d 426 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 22, 1994

Appellants also claimed that this interpretation was required to avoid jeopardizing the Plan’s tax-qualified status. … “The futility exception is, however, quite restricted,” id., and has been applied only when resort to administrative remedies is “clearly useless.”

Jeremiah Maynard v. Laura M. Sutherland

313 F.2d 560 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 1962

He would have us say that Laura’s execution of the deed of trust, without more, destroyed the joint tenancy, so clearly established by the Scott deed and by the judgment in the first, action, Civil Action 3454, supra. … That last conclusion was certainly established by the judgment in Maynard v. Sutherland. 9 . Mrs.

Schwartz v. Helms

712 F.2d 633 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 1983

But this change in the power of the NTSB is entirely consistent with the role of the Board as established by statute. … Petitioners clearly have standing to challenge the agency’s action.

Ethyl Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, American Automobile Manufacturers Association, Ferroalloys Association, Intervenors

51 F.3d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 14, 1995

In sum, the Administrator of the EPA clearly misconstrued the criterion by which she grants and denies waivers for fuel additives. … The thrust of Senator Muskie's concern was clearly MMT’s effects on emissions. 12 . The Administrator noted two potential problems with the standards by which the EPA evaluates emissions effects.

Scenic America, Inc. v. United States Department of Transportation

836 F.3d 42 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 6, 2016

Scenic’s injury, clearly caused by the Guidance, is therefore redressable. … Cir. 2011) (concluding that where agency action withdraws an entity’s previously-held discretion, that action “alter[s] the legal regime,” “binds” the entity, “and thus qualifies as final agency action”).

Depu v. Yahoo! Inc.

334 F. Supp. 3d 315 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 24, 2018

THE COURT DID NOT "CLEARLY ERR" BY DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' COMPLAINT WITH PREJUDICE Plaintiffs assert that the Court committed "clear error" within the meaning of Rule 59(e) by dismissing plaintiffs' complaint with prejudice … By contrast, the Court's finding that plaintiffs lack standing under charitable trust principles was, as plaintiffs acknowledge, on the merits , resting on the Court's finding that plaintiffs do not qualify for an exception

NACS v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

746 F.3d 474 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 21, 2014

The Board also thinks the Durbin Amendment is unambiguous, though it argues that the statute clearly establishes a third category of costs: those that are not “incremental” ACS costs but are specific to a particular transaction … By contrast, in the Durbin Amendment Congress set aside every clearly descriptive clause with commas.

Bruno, Roberto S. v. Albright, Madeleine

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 3, 1999

As revised in 1976, s 702 itself contains another qualifying clause. … Cir. 1986), aff'd by an equally divided Court, 484 U.S. 1 (1987), forecloses any contention that consular visa decisions are immune from judicial review.

Lebanon Steel Foundry v. National Labor Relations Board

130 F.2d 404 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 29, 1942

We think the Board is clearly right. Two forms of checkoff card were used, as follows: “Wage Deduction Authority “Dated.......... “No........... … Phillips later qualified this by saying the company intended to deal with “the Independent Group” as sole collective bargaining agency “until the definite status of each group was established.” Of. text at note 4 infra.

Arora v. Buckhead Family Dentistry, Inc.

285 F. Supp. 3d 190 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 8, 2018

Paige or Buckhead Family Dentistry was not "qualified, honest and ethical." Dkt. 6 at 22 (Am. Compl. ¶ 126). … As the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit has put it, "there is no reason to raise false hopes and waste judicial resources by transferring a case that is clearly doomed." Phillips v.

Flytenow, Inc. v. Federal Aviation Administration

808 F.3d 882 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 18, 2015

The FAA’s position that expense sharing can be permitted compensation is consistent and well established. … “[A] plaintiff who engages in some conduct that is clearly  23 proscribed cannot complain of the vagueness of the law as applied to the conduct of others.” Holder v.

Freeman v. Lewis

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

The only person promoted to a GS-12 level position which plaintiff was qualified for but denied was also a white female. 13 2. … )nce 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.

Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. Maritime Administration

956 F.2d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 21, 1992

We explained that we were establishing this bright line test to discourage the filing of petitions for review until after the agency completes the reconsideration process. … ETG does not hint at any way in which unsealing might conceivably establish either that a full reopening of the bidding occurred or that such a reopening was legally required.

Gary A. Weissman v. Central Intelligence Agency

565 F.2d 692 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 6, 1977

Although deemed qualified for undercover assignment, Weiss-man was never approached and he did not at any time seek employment with the Agency. … As Congress indicated, before the Court orders in camera inspection, the *697 Government should be given the opportunity to establish by means of testimony or detailed affidavits that the documents are clearly exempt from

United States v. Mark Clark

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 10, 2025

For the reasons clearly explained by the District Court, we affirm. See A. 1236–42. … [and] the objective reasonableness standard established in Graham[.]”

Williams v. Verizon Wash., D.C. Inc.

304 F. Supp. 3d 183 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 2018

This construction of the facts is belied by the facts in the instant record, which establish quite clearly that Williams lied about his whereabouts when he was questioned during the investigation, and that *195 his deceptiveness … Cir. 1982) (noting, in the discrimination context, that even where an employer has failed to follow its own established regulations, that alone is merely probative, and may not be sufficient to establish a forbidden intent