Case law

United States v. Anita G. Whitlock

663 F.2d 1094 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 4, 1980

First, we are unwilling to hold that in order for a psychiatrist or psychologist to qualify as an expert witness he must spend some particular number of hours with the patient, or must invariably consult the patient’s private … Appellant’s other complaints about the Government’s experts give us little pause; we have reviewed the record and find that invariably they mischaracterize the witnesses’ statements. 95 It fol *1106 lows that, with the experts qualified

SSM Litigation Group v. EPA

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 5, 2025

To qualify for the defense, the permittee was required to prove that “[a]n emergency occurred,” that the facility was “being properly operated,” and that the permittee had taken “all reasonable steps” to minimize excess emissions … SSM asserted its members represent directly regulated Title V permit holders, and the explanation of why such directly regulated entities have standing is clearly established by the administrative record.

United States v. Ronald E. Yates

524 F.2d 1282 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 10, 1975

certain types of prior crimes be admitted for impeachment purposes, see 14 D.C.Code § 305, does not apply to trials of solely D.C.Code offenses conducted in the United States District Court during the transition period established … Clearly, grave doubts exist as to the sincerity of the self-serving statement.

Illinois National Guard v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

854 F.2d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 19, 1988

to establish their work schedules. … Clearly, the Technician Act does not require him unilaterally to prescribe work schedules.

United States v. James Robert Dorsey, United States of America v. Faye Margaret Crawford A/K/A Faye Margaret Powell

591 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 12, 1979

The trial judge discussed no other means by which the jury could find the “unlawful[ ]” carrying element of section 924(c)(2) established. … (a) What constitutes. — In any mercantile establishment, it is unlawful for any person (1) To remove any goods, wares or merchandise from the immediate place of display or from any other place within the establishment with

Fedex Home Delivery v. National Labor Relations Board

563 F.3d 492 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 21, 2009

“[EJvidence of unequal bargaining power” also did not establish “control.” Id. … Because the indicia favoring a finding the contractors are employees are clearly outweighed by evidence of entrepreneurial opportunity, the Board cannot be said to have made a choice between two fairly conflicting views.

Association of Accredited Cosmetology Schools v. Lamar Alexander, Secretary, United States Department of Education

979 F.2d 859 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 24, 1992

[o]n the date the institution no longer qualifies as an eligible institution.” Id. at' 6. … Several cases have established that such a requirement does not operate retroactively. See Reynolds v.

Austin J. Tobin v. United States

306 F.2d 270 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 13, 1962

This does not mean that once congressional consent is obtained the particular compact becomes a law unto itself, immune by reason of its autonomy from future congressional supervision. … Therefore, we emphasize that all we are saying here is that a due regard for the responsibility of administering justice prompts us to avoid serious constitutional adjudications until such time as Congress clearly manifests

United States v. Donato Battista

876 F.2d 201 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 1989

The facts in this case demonstrate that the officers clearly had such reasonable suspicion to approach Bat-tista. … Battista argues that there is no evidence in the record to show "that this dog had been trained or qualified to detect anything." Br. for Appellant at 12. Compare United States v.

Harold Martin v. Department of Justice

488 F.3d 446 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 2007

We therefore agree with the district court that the 1992 Memo qualified for protection in its entirety as attorney work-product because it contains facts “integral to the legal analyses and discussions of investigation Strategy … "Of the records plaintiff sought in the supplemental complaint, the FDIC has established that the 1991 [FDIC] Report of Apparent Crime in which Mr.

State of Ohio v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

997 F.2d 1520 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 20, 1993

The States suggest different language that Congress might have used to indicate clearly its authorization of EPA’s approach. … to provide drinking water would not qualify.

United States v. Herman Lawton, Jr.

995 F.2d 290 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 1993

During the relevant period, Lawton was not an officer or an employee of the International; his relationship with the District Council was never clearly established at trial. 2 The district court, however, instructed the jury … The indictment clearly charged Lawton with embezzlement only from the Local. The court’s instructions just as clearly outlined a substantially broader field of potential criminality.

United States v. Brodie

524 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 6, 2008

Therefore, the imposition of the four-level enhancement pursuant to U.S.S.G. § 3B1.1 was not clearly erroneous. D. … “Expert” Witness Claim Brodie also claims that Harper and Brewster were not qualified to testify as expert witnesses.

Chien Fan Chu v. Herbert Brownell, Jr., Individually and as Attorney General of the United States

247 F.2d 790 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 18, 1957

He based his non sequitur, as the factors recited in his memorandum so clearly show, not on the statutory test for “last residence,” but on those essential to establish the status of “refugee,” under § 2(a) of the Act. … It clearly distinguished “foreign residence” from “last residence” as used in § 6.

Charles Johnson v. Elliott Johnson

324 F.2d 884 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 24, 1963

The statute does not qualify, limit, or define the word “children”, and appellant has made no showing that Congress intended the word to be limited. See United States v. … In enacting this provision, Congress clearly intended that the duty of a father to support his illegitimate children 10 should, under some circumstances at least, be enforceable in the Domestic Relations Branch.

International Union of Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers v. United States

280 F.2d 645 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 10, 1960

But in the Opinion and Final Decision which accompanied its order of May 26, 1959, by interpolating the phrase we emphasize, the Commission qualified the finding: “22. … This clearly implies that evidence does not now establish that the reactor can be so operated.

Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Civil Aeronautics Board

475 F.2d 900 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 4, 1973

Petitioner argues that the agreement is so “at odds with established concepts of anti-trust law” and raises questions of such substantial importance as to require a hearing. … But the Board must, at a minimum, address the question of adverse impact on carrier employees 16 and set forth clearly its reasons for concluding that the public interest lay in approval of the agreement.

Perkins v. Beryhill

379 F. Supp. 3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 7, 2019

To qualify for Supplemental Security Income, a claimant must establish that she is "disabled." 42 U.S.C. §§ 423 (a)(1)(D), 1382(a)(1). … More so than in these cases, the record here is far from clearly substantiating a disability.

U.S. Department of the Treasury v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

996 F.2d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 29, 1993

The Circular states that, except for the agency’s own internal appeal system, “[t]his Circular and its Supplement shall not ... establish and shall not be construed to create any substantive or procedural basis for anyone … Since the OMB Circular was clearly a regulation, the union had a legitimate right to bargain over grievance procedures to enforce or implement that regulation.

J.G.G. v. Donald Trump (EN BANC ORDER)

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 14, 2025

The government has never asserted any immunity or privilege to withhold the identities of the decision makers. … In merely seeking information about the government’s apparent contempt of court, the district court did not violate any nondiscretionary duty nor clearly abuse its discretion.