Case law

International Union, United Automobile v. Donovan

746 F.2d 855 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 23, 1984

There is no way to avoid the interpretation that the qualifying approval (“such approval”) is approval under the conditions of the 1981 amendments. … An agency may, of course, be constrained to expend a certain portion of a lump-sum appropriation on a particular program because that program establishes a system of statutory entitlements over which the agency has no control

United States v. Belt

142 F.2d 761 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 1944

That there was in 1794 fast land to the east of Water Street as it parallelled the Anacostia River is too clearly shown to be thought to be in doubt. … As a result of these well recognized limitations or subordinations, the right of a riparian proprietor may be properly described as a qualified right (cf.: Greenleaf-Johnson Lbr. Co. v.

MD DC DE Bcastr Assn v. FCC

253 F.3d 732 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 16, 2001

of training programs designed to enable station personnel to acquire skills that could qualify them for higher level positions; (ix) Establishment of a mentoring program for station person- nel; Under … get the job does not mean that people are being treated equally--that is, without regard to their race--in the qualifying round.

Diamond Walnut Growers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

113 F.3d 1259 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 20, 1997

And Munoz was qualified to fill a forklift operating job, a position that paid between $2.75 and $5.00 per hour more than the walnut cracking and inspecting job she received. … Unlike the typical situation in which, as Town & Country recognized, see — U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 457 , an employer has other remedies to deal with sabotage, those remedies are clearly not adequate here.

Local 777, Democratic Union Organizing Committee v. National Labor Relations Board

603 F.2d 862 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 20, 1978

When we used the phrase “limited judicial review” we did not mean that the balance struck by the Board is immune from judicial examination and reversal in proper cases. … We are particularly unimpressed with the Board’s reference to the garage manager’s “wide latitude” in deciding who qualifies to be a lessee.

American Equity Investment Life Insurance v. Securities & Exchange Commission

613 F.3d 166 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 21, 2009

However, that is not sufficient to establish that the SEC’s rule is arbitrary or capricious. … According to the Commission, these two cases established that adequate state regulation is not relevant to whether a product qualifies for a § 3(a)(8) exemption.

Sherley v. Sebelius

610 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 25, 2010

Finally, the court opined that even if the Doctors qualify as “competitors,” they would still lack standing because the “application process to receive NIH funding is [already] extremely competitive,” id., i.e., the additional … The Dickey-Wicker Amendment clearly limits the funding of research involving human embryos.

The Honorable Shirley Chisholm v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Cbs, Inc., Intervenors. Democratic National Committee v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, American Broadcasting Company, Inc., and Radio Television News Directors Association, Intervenors

538 F.2d 349 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 13, 1976

The 1959 amendment to Section 315 clearly limited to some extent the simple mechanistic application of that section. … By contrast, the testimony and questioning of FCC Commissioner Ford, who unsuccessfully proposed an exemption for coverage of "special events," clearly established that the author of that language intended to include debates

National Mining Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

59 F.3d 1351 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 21, 1995

EPA clearly is not obliged to take into account controls that are only chimeras and do not really restrain an operator from emitting pollution. … The government maintains that since Congress did not specify what kind of controls would qualify, EPA was free to answer that question.

Reichelderfer v. Johnson

72 F.2d 552 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 25, 1934

In their contentions here both parties appear to loso sight of the traditional and well-established limitations upon writs of mandamus to publie officers, for mandamus will not issue where its effect will be to dictate to … Ed. 836 , These factors, we think, clearly show the inappliea *557 bility of that decision to this ease, and it is also significant that the ostensible effect of the Delaware & Hudson Case was substantially qualified when

National Ass'n of Manufacturers v. Department of Labor

159 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 3, 1998

The membership dues argument is particularly inapt in this case; membership dues clearly have not financed this litigation because NAM’s attorneys have not charged NAM for their work. … NAM does not qualify as indigent. Nor, contends the government, can this case be classified as “public interest” litigation.

Howgate v. United States

7 App. D.C. 217 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 14, 1895

This would be a most dangerous doctrine. to establish. The legal status of a fugitive from justice cannot be changed in that way. … At first, two of the three judges who comprised the court were of opinion that the defendant was entitled to immunity under the statute.

Laffey v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

740 F.2d 1071 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 20, 1984

Id. at 463 (citation omitted). 22 In this appeal, NWA argues that the law of the case established in Laffey I is “clearly erroneous” and the source of “manifest injustice,” once again urging upon us a contrary analysis of … Allowances that primarily serve the interest of the employee, however, do qualify as wages, the court stated.

Harbor Insurance Company, Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Omni Construction, Inc., Appellee/cross-Appellant

912 F.2d 1520 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 28, 1990

That coverage is qualified, however, by Endorsement No. 9 to the policy, entitléd “Engineers and Architects Exclusion (Engineers, Architects or Surveyors Professional Liability),” which excludes from coverage any personal … Analysis Harbor sought to establish at trial that (1) the damage to the Sears building was caused by an error in the design of the sheeting and shoring system; (2) such design work constitutes a “professional service”; and

In Re: Alphonso Michael Espy

346 F.3d 199 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 14, 2003

She was not indicted, and in July 1997 was granted use immunity. … Nonetheless, we have found that petitioners qualify for an award of fees in the face of the but-for test in at least four circumstances: 1.

Eugene B. Kassman v. The American University. Appeal of Lloyd Ultan

546 F.2d 1029 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 19, 1976

Not only did Ultan not bring this claim to the attention of the District Court but he indicated in his proposed jury instructions and in his motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict that he had only a qualified privilege … The jury was finally but clearly instructed that, after taking into consideration mitigation efforts on Kassman’s part, it could award him damages for loss of income up to 13 months, less any income he earned during that

United States v. Antonio Ramon Washington, United States of America v. Carl Gedde

969 F.2d 1073 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1992

In Ford , we articulated a test to determine whether a defendant qualifies for severance due to a need for his codefendant’s testimony. … Taylor, 937 F.2d 676, 680 (D.C.Cir.1991) (giving trial judges "at the least," the "clearly erroneous" standard of review).

DL v. District of Columbia

860 F.3d 713 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 2017

In this case, by contrast, we are clearly in Rule 23-land and guided by Geraghty. … Moreover, the District’s violation was clearly substantive.

Busey v. District of Columbia

129 F.2d 24 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 15, 1942

are they immune from ordinary police regulations. … Men who sell magazines are no more immune than men who own newspapers, or bookstores.

Association of American Railroads v. Costle

562 F.2d 1310 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 23, 1977

Nothing in the statute diminishes or qualifies the generality of these two key words — equipment and facility. Nothing in the statute states that only certain kinds of equipment or facilities need to be regulated. … We find these arguments to be clearly frivolous and insubstantial and therefore do not address them in detail in this opinion. . 42 U.S.C. § 4901 (a)(3). . See, e. g., Yazoo Railroad Co. v.