Case law

National Ass'n of Regional Medical Programs, Inc. v. Mathews

551 F.2d 340 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 13, 1976

If the source is the govern *157 ment, section 2412 mandates that another statute specifically provide for the attorney’s fee recovery or else such recovery is clearly prohibited. … ) the named representative must not have antagonistic or conflicting interests with the unnamed members of the class, and 2) the representative must appear able to vigorously prosecute the interests of the class through qualified

Riker Laboratories, Inc., a Corporation of Delaware v. Gist-Brocades N. v. a Corporation of the Netherlands

636 F.2d 772 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 26, 1980

Clearly invalidity would “[affect] the patent,” since it results in the patent’s unenforceability. … The plaintiff sought a judgment declaring the validity of a sublicensing agreement for the purpose of establishing that he was entitled to certain royalties.

Tokar v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

304 F. Supp. 3d 81 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 29, 2018

"More specifically, the Morford Memorandum calls for the selection of monitors through the use of a candidate pool 'of at least three qualified monitor candidates' whenever possible." Id. … The Court has already found that the release of these names "would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy" under Exemption 6.

Roe v. Wilson

365 F. Supp. 3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 4, 2019

And Mann moves to dismiss the § 1983 claims against him on the basis that he is entitled to qualified immunity. M/A MTD at 8. 1. Wilson First, Wilson. … Mann Finally, Principal Mann, who asserts that he is entitled to qualified immunity. The Court need not reach that question, however, for two reasons.

Campaign Legal Center v. FEC

31 F.4th 781 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 19, 2022

We agree and therefore find that Appellants have established a cognizable informational injury. 1. … Applying the Law to the Facts of this Case Turning to the case at hand, FECA clearly gives Appellants a statutory right to information about the amounts, dates, recipients, and purposes of any coordinated expenditures

Laughlin v. United States

92 F.2d 506 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 22, 1937

The court proceeded to a trial of the case with ten qualified jurors, by and with the consent of the defendant. … This rule is clearly set out in Smith v. United States (C.C.A.) 10 F.(2d) 787, 788 .

Baloch v. Kempthorne

550 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 30, 2008

To prove retaliation, the plaintiff generally must establish that he or she suffered (i) a materially adverse action (ii) because he or she had brought or threatened to bring a discrimination claim. … Baloch clearly had several verbal clashes with his supervisor in the workplace.

Life Extension Foundation, Inc. v. Internal Revenue Service

915 F. Supp. 2d 174 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 16, 2013

In addition, the King declaration clearly explains the reasons why disclosure would harm the decision-making process. Id. … As previously explained, Exemption 3 of FOIA incorporates nondisclosure protections established in other federal statutes, see generally 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(3), and it is well-established that 26 U.S.C. § 6103 provides particular

Federal Election Commission v. National Republican Senatorial Committee

966 F.2d 1471 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 1992

The Commission’s precedents and statements, both preceding and following the 1986 election, do not clearly establish what “direction or control,” for purposes of the regulation, means. … The problem is that if this establishes “direction or control” within the meaning of § 110.6(d)(2) then every solicitation qualifies for the same treatment. Every solicitation “pre-selects” candidates to some degree.

Michael F. Dilley, Captain, U.S. Army Reserve v. Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., Secretary of the Army Raymond W. Fontaine, Major, U.S. Army Reserve v. Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., Secretary of the Army Milton D. O'Quinn v. Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., Secretary of the Army. Major Russell A. Powell v. Clifford L. Alexander, Jr., Secretary of the Army

603 F.2d 914 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 26, 1979

The military departments enjoy no immunity from this proscription. See Harmon v. Brucker, supra; Geiger v. Brown, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 132, 135-37 , 419 F.2d 714, 717-19 (1969); Roberts v. … The Army construes this to mean that Reserve officers shall be included when "qualified and available." App. at 143.

New Mexico v. Environmental Protection Agency

114 F.3d 290 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 6, 1997

Petitioners argue that the resulting guidelines are not specific enough to qualify as “criteria” under the congressional mandate. … The redacted portions of the memorandum qualify for the deliberative process privilege, National Courier Ass’n v.

RCA Global Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

758 F.2d 722 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 5, 1985

Nor can the FCC seriously rely on note 14 of the Prescription Order 15 for evidence that it clearly validated a tariff substantively identical to the one at issue in this ease. … However, the Commission’s simultaneous denial of RCA’s complaint, which was premised on arguments identical to those raised in the petition to reject, is clearly reviewable.

Anthony Teong-Chan Gaw Rossana W. Gaw v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

45 F.3d 461 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 31, 1995

Gaw established residence in the United States in order to qualify for U.S. citizenship. Once he obtained his citizenship he returned to Hong Kong. Mrs. Gaw is not a U.S. citizen. … Gaw were establishing separate addresses.

Red Star Manufacturing Co. v. Grimes

221 F.2d 524 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 23, 1954

He qualified this statement to the extent that piecework rates, applicable to all pieceworkers, would have to be raised in order to preserve incentives. … Clearly their resignations do not affect the validity of the report since § 5(c) of the Act provides that 'two-thirds of the members * * * shall constitute a quorum,' and that only a 'majority of all its members' is required

The Newspaper Guild v. Edward H. Levi, Attorney General

539 F.2d 755 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 19, 1976

This is particularly true since the original proposed regulation did not limit the filing requirements to newspapers seeking antitrust immunity. See 36 Fed.Reg. 20435, discussed supra. … The concept of a limited newspaper exemption from antitrust law clearly pervades the Act and the history of its enactment. Within the statute itself, this antitrust milieu is evident.

American Telephone & Telegraph Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

978 F.2d 727 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 13, 1992

It is well established that a rule may be reviewed when it is applied in an adjudication — an agency need not explicitly reassess the validity of a rule to subject the rule to challenge on review. See NLRB Union v. … The Report, and the Commission’s desire to protect it, clearly provided the underlying rationale for the order under review.

Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. United States Postal Service, Advertising Mail Marketing Association, Intervenors

110 F.3d 80 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 5, 1997

Clearly these are goals that can be met — in many contexts are met — by carefully conditioned discounts. … Once the Commission issued its recommendation, the Governors clearly found it •within the terms of the Request.

Mazaleski v. Treusdell

562 F.2d 701 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 1977

He argues that his complaint was immune from dismissal because he had alleged facts which, if proven true, would provide a basis for judicial relief, 16 relying chiefly on Scheuer v. … The issue here is essentially legal, since procedural irregularities are indeed clearly established by the record as appellant maintains. 38 48 The essence of appellant's first argument is that the regulations entitled him

Cargill, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America, Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Inc., Intervenor. Baton Rouge Marine Contractors, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission and United States of America, Cargill, Inc., Intervenor

530 F.2d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 12, 1976

conference, retains the right of independent action, or (2) in respect to any conference agreement, which fails to provide reasonable and equal terms and conditions for admission and readmission to conference membership of other qualified … enjoys unilateral authority to impose novel charges without seeking prior approval under § 15, because any such unilateral course is not an 'agreement' subject to that provision, the corollary is that there would be no § 15 immunity

Thomas D. Powell v. United States Bureau of Prisons

927 F.2d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 15, 1991

First, although in this action the Bureau contends that the entire Manual is exempt from FOIA disclosure, the Bureau has, in earlier litigation, “conceded that Chapter 2 [of the Manual] does not qualify for exemption from … In this case, however, the release of segregated portions of the Manual clearly is inconsistent with the Bureau’s claim (and the district court’s implication) that the Manual was not segrega-ble.