Case law

United States ex rel. Bronson Co. v. Duell

17 D.C. App. 471 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 5, 1901

Grammatically, the qualifying words, “ as such,” following “lawfully used,” would seem to indicate that lawful use — that is to say, use which could, under established rules of law, result in the lawful exclusive appropriation … Whilst the particular question *480 as here presented was not discussed in that case, the conclusion we have before announced is clearly within the reasoning of the opinion.

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.

Monongahela Power Company v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Army, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Intervenor. Monongahela Power Company v. John O. Marsh, Jr., Secretary, Department of the Army, the Sierra Club, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Intervenor. Monongahela Power Company v. John O. Marsh, Jr., State of West Virginia, Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Intervenor

809 F.2d 41 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 13, 1987

Furthermore, the legislative history of Sec. 401 reveals that the quoted provision was intended merely to assure that "any water quality requirements established under State law, more stringent than those requirements established … Monsanto Co., 467 U.S. 986, 1018 , 104 S.Ct. 2862, 2881 , 81 L.Ed.2d 815, 842 (1984) (where two statutes are " 'capable of co-existence, it is the duty of the courts, absent a clearly expressed congressional intention to

Hudson C. Millar, Jr., and James Jerdan Bullard v. Federal Communications Commission

707 F.2d 1530 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 20, 1983

Section 405 appears to establish that the appropriate time for objection to a failure to rehear was while the matter was at the hearing examiner stage. … We decline to reach this issue because it appears that it was not clearly raised before the Commission.

Freeman Engineering Associates, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

103 F.3d 169 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 7, 1997

Because ACT and Viacom’s petitions for review were clearly filed within the sixty-day period, we have jurisdiction to consider their claims. B. … As a result, Viacom failed to raise its claims before the Commission clearly. Therefore, we will not consider them on appeal. 4.

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

Victor Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Radio Station Wabz, Inc., Intervenor

722 F.2d 756 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 22, 1983

articulating a basis on which to conclude that the incumbent’s record establishes that it is more likely to serve the public interest. 16 B. … The majority rationalizes WABZ’s failure by arguing that an otherwise qualified applicant for renewal should not necessarily be required to demonstrate additional capital investments to qualify for a license renewal. 50 However

Bendix Aviation Corporation, Bendix Radio Division v. Federal Communications Commission, Aeronautical Radio, Inc., and Air Transport Association of America, Intervenors. Aeronautical Radio, Inc., a Corporation v. United States of America, Federal Communications Commission

272 F.2d 533 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 13, 1959

The Commission also was clearly cognizant of the public interest character of the Bendix objective. … Channels of communication subject to Government control, use and assignment clearly are not available to the public.

Grace v. Whitaker

344 F. Supp. 3d 96 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 17, 2018

He specifically stated that few claims pertaining to domestic or gang violence by non-governmental actors could qualify for asylum or satisfy the credible fear standard. See id. at 320 n.1. … First, a directive to ignore circuit precedent when doing so would violate the principles of Brand X itself is clearly unlawful.

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.

Spanish International Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, International Panorama Tv, Inc., Intervenor

385 F.2d 615 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 7, 1967

We have had occasion to observe that “Congress clearly recognized that sound regulation has procedural as well as substantive elements, and that 'the public interest, convenience, and necessity’ comprehends both. … Either step would have forced a prompt and adequate determination as to its status, and assured its full participation if it qualified as a party in interest.

Milton S. Kronheim & Company, Inc. v. District of Columbia

91 F.3d 193 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 9, 1996

The Act also established an Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, which was authorized to issue, transfer and revoke any license under the Act. … Stat. § 561.54 (1987) ("It is unlawful ... to make delivery from without the state of any alcoholic beverage to any person ... within this state, except ... qualified bonded warehouses in this state"); N.J.Rev.Stat. § 33:

United States Postal Service v. Postal Regulatory Commission

599 F.3d 705 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 30, 2010

But petitioner does not explain clearly why the criteria are “ill-suited.” … Assuming, arguendo, however, that the Service has succeeded in at least establishing that the statute is ambiguous, we turn to the question of Chevron deference vel non.

Grand Union Company v. Food Employers Labor Relations Association and United Food & Commercial Workers Pension Fund Grand Union Company v. Food Employers Labor Relations Association and United Food & Commercial Workers Pension Fund Grand Union Company v. Food Employers Labor Relations Association and United Food & Commercial Workers Pension Fund

808 F.2d 66 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 13, 1987

The presumption can be overcome only if the challenger "shows by a preponderance of the evidence that the determination was unreasonable or clearly erroneous." Id. … Had the Fund agreed to the substitution, Grand Union allegedly would have qualified for the "sale of assets" exemption ( 29 U.S.C.

Dana v. Rock Creek Railway Co.

7 App. D.C. 482 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1896

its tracks within the municipal limits of Washington City: ‘ Grants of privileges or powers to corporate bodies, like those in question, confer no license to use them in disregard of the private rights of others, and with immunity … Green Bay Company, supra, is the expression of common sense, common justice, and common honesty; and as such, although at one time criticised and sought to be restricted and qualified, has received the repeated approval of

John H.M. Chen v. General Accounting Office

821 F.2d 732 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 1987

-In the course of that proceeding at least two significant facts were established: Chen was stipulated to be qualified for the position of education evaluation specialist, and he was found to have a command of the English … Since we have retained jurisdiction over this case, on remand, the PAB must apply the clearly established law of this circuit, i.e., the preponderance of evidence standard. 13 IV.

United States v. Charles C. Diggs, Jr.

613 F.2d 988 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 1980

Second, we find that the actual scheme to defraud has clearly been established. … Evidence which establishes only that a person has made a mistake in judgment or an error in management or was careless does not establish fraudulent intent.

Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. Maritime Administration and United States of America, Argent Companies, Cabot Lng Shipping Corporation, Shell International Marine Limited, Shell Gas Nigeria, B v. Shell Bermuda (Overseas) Limited, Shell International Gas Limited (Shell Appellees), Intervenors. Cabot Lng Corporation v. Samuel K. Skinner, Energy Transportation Group, Inc., Shell International Marine Limited v. Maritime Administration of the United States, Energy Transportation Group, Inc., Energy Transportation Group, Inc. v. Samuel K. Skinner

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

We explained that we were establishing 13 this bright line test to discourage the filing of petitions for review until after the agency completes the reconsideration process. … Department of the Navy, 540 F.Supp. 180, 183, 201-03 (D.D.C.1982) (standing to challenge alleged violation of statute requiring solicitation of bids from maximum number of qualified sources).

Sidney M. Wolfe, M.D., Public Citizen Health Research Group v. Department of Health and Human Services

711 F.2d 1077 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 1983

A threshold inquiry in any FOIA case is whether the documents requested are in fact “agency records.” 3 Although the Act does not contain a definition of the term, the Supreme Court has established that a document qualifies … Establishing who “possesses” documents is a factual determination.

Menkes v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

637 F.3d 319 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 2011

A single pilot can be qualified to navigate vessels in both areas, although Area 2 pilots must be qualified to navigate a vessel both into a port and from “pilot boat to pilot boat,” *324 i.e., a vessel that is only passing … The letters clearly provide *336 support for the view that the SLSPA had not been responsible for the problem of pilot attrition in Area 2.