Case law

In re Espy

327 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 9, 2003

She was not indicted, and in July 1997 was granted use immunity. She seeks reimbursement of $96,863.23 for fees incurred from October 1994 to April 2001. … 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.

Farmworker Justice Fund, Inc. v. William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor

811 F.2d 613 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 7, 1987

More generally, the Supreme Court stated that "an agency's decision not to take enforcement action should be presumed immune from judicial review ... … In adopting the ten-and-under restriction in appropriations riders, it clearly qualified that intent: safety and health for the small-farm worker were not to be a subject of direct federal regulation but were to come about

Fund for Animals, Inc. v. U.S. Bureau of Land Management

460 F.3d 13 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 18, 2006

The individual roundups might qualify; the Bureau’s budget proposal does not. … But the record does not establish, at this stage, that the Instruction Memorandum has been withdrawn.

National Asphalt Pavement Ass'n v. Train

539 F.2d 775 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 21, 1976

See Brief for Warren Brothers at 21 (Simultaneous publication of the designation and the proposed standards “virtually ensured that that determination would be immune from meaningful public comment.”). … That letter clearly suggests that counsel for NAPA considered the “significant contributor” designation open for comment, and that NAPA desired procedures in addition to those required by section 4 of the APA to probe that

I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Plan A, a Benefits v. Clinton Engines Corporation, (Two Cases). I.A.M. National Pension Fund, Benefit Plan a v. Cooper Industries, Inc

825 F.2d 415 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 28, 1987

On the basis of Congress' clearly expressed intent, we conclude that the employers in these cases were bound initially to resort to arbitration. … No. 86-7015, at 29-34 15 As discussed supra text at 7-9; see also supra notes 12-13, Cooper's dispute concerned whether a sale of one of its divisions qualified for the exemption contained in 29 U.S.C.

Estate of Hirshfeld v. Islamic Republic of Iran

330 F. Supp. 3d 107 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 30, 2018

Islamic Republic of Iran , 999 F.Supp. 1 , 30 (D.D.C. 1998) (discussing solatium damages under a prior version of the statutory state-sponsored terrorism exception to foreign sovereign immunity). … Cir. 2016) (noting that district court opinions do not establish binding precedent on other courts).

Garrity v. District of Columbia

86 F.2d 207 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 31, 1936

, answered, “I think we would be qualified to do that but personally I would rather sit here and wait for owners to come in and ask that the restricted than be lifted. … The first two were clearly immaterial. The third would have been relevant only if the Commission was bound by the rules applicable to court hearings.

Union of Concerned Scientists v. Atomic Energy Commission and United States of America, Boston Edison Company, Intervenor

499 F.2d 1069 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 10, 1974

Congress acted in 1962 to relieve the burdens on the Commission by authorizing it to establish one or more atomic safety and licensing boards, each comprised of three members, one of whom shall be qualified in the conduct … It was initiated in the course of an opinion in a particular case, and qualified in a directive of equal or greater dignity.

United States v. Belfield

692 F.2d 141 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 5, 1982

Thus, though appellants were not targets of the surveillance, they qualify as aggrieved persons because their “communications ... were subject to electronic surveillance.” . Cf. Alderman v. … The executive branch is responsible for promulgating minimization procedures, establishing and complying with internal review procedures, and supervising warrantless surveillance. Id. at 414-33 .

Hall, Sheryl L. v. Clinton, Hillary R.

285 F.3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 5, 2002

Hall asserts that in November 1996 her “position was eliminated and her duties and supervisory responsibilities were assigned to a lesser qualified individual under whose supervision she was assigned to work.” … United States, 961 F.2d 245 (D.C.Cir.1992), cert. denied, 506 U.S. 1078 , 113 S.Ct. 1044 , 122 L.Ed.2d 353 (1993), the standards for establishing the preclusive effect of an earlier holding are: First, the same issue now

County of Los Angeles, a Political Subdivision of the State of California, Owner and Operator of Los Angeles County/usc Medical Center, Harbor/ucla Medical Center, Martin Luther King Jr./drew Medical Center, Olive View Medical Center and High Desert Hospital Appellees/cross-Appellants v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services Appellant/cross-Appellee

192 F.3d 1005 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 1, 1999

To account for regional variations in labor costs, the Secretary then establishes a wage index that augments the adjusted standardized payment depending on the location of a qualifying hospital. § 1395ww(d)(2)(H), (d)(3)( … Traditionally, the Secretary has read paragraph (5)(A)(iv) to mean that at the start of each fiscal year, she must establish the fixed thresholds beyond which hospitals will qualify for outlier payments at levels likely to

United States v. Judicial Watch, Inc.

371 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 2004

Supp. 2d at 623–27 (injunctive relief barred by the Anti– Injunction Act, damages barred by defendants’ qualified im- munity). … The IRS ar- gues in response that the modified summons is not overbroad because it ‘‘clearly advised Judicial Watch what was required of it’’ and sought documents that ‘‘clearly shed light on the various issues under investigation

Consolidated Edison Co. of New York, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

347 F.3d 964 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 7, 2003

FERC may then order refunds for any period subsequent to the ‘‘refund effective date,’’ a date FERC establishes that must be at least sixty days after the filing of the complaint. Id. § 824e(b). … Although it is true that in their initial complaint, the LSEs did not describe their claim as one of tariff violation, they clearly did so in their rehearing request.

Hanoch Tel-Oren, in His Capacity as Father, on Behalf of the Deceased, Imry Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic Hanoch Tel-Oren v. Libyan Arab Republic

726 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 3, 1984

Madison). 13 The First Judiciary Act clearly did not go as far as Hamilton might have hoped. … Jurisdiction over Libya is barred by the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 1330 , 1602-1611 (1976), which preserves immunity for tort claims unless injury or death occurs in the United States. 28 U.S.C. §§ 1604

Shirey v. Devine

670 F.2d 1188 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 8, 1982

Shirey was qualified, and then only if NASA had established its own displacement scheme for noncompetitive employees. … Although we shall seldom consider arguments not clearly presented in the statement of issues, Fed.R.App.P. 28(a) is not inflexible.

Jack Siegel v. William E. Bookhultz & Sons, Inc., St. Paul Fire and Marine Insurance Co.

419 F.2d 720 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 28, 1969

For the same reason, *723 we need not inquire whether the questioned fees would normally qualify as costs “as between solicitor and client,” 16 which St. … We perceive no policy, legislative or judicial, to be served by immunizing St.

Washington Area Carpenters' Welfare Fund v. Overhead Door Co.

681 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 1982

Since the Funds failed to establish the majority status of the Union, the agreements could not be enforced. … An employer who had signed a prehire agreement established a separate company for the purpose of doing business with nonunion employees.

Novecon Ltd. v. Bulgarian-American Enterprise Fund

190 F.3d 556 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 3, 1999

In the District of Columbia, "parties will not be bound to a prelimi- nary agreement unless the evidence presented clearly indi- cates that they intended to be bound at that point." Jack Baker, 664 A.2d at 1239. … District of Columbia law makes it very difficult for a plaintiff to overcome a qualified privilege.

John Mann v. David Castiel

681 F.3d 368 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 2012

Rule 4(d) contains a procedure for establishing waiver of service of a summons. … In that motion defendants clarified that while they had received a copy of the summons and complaint from “some person,” it was “unknown” whether this person was qualified to serve process.

National Council of Resistance of Iran v. Department of State

251 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 8, 2001

Therefore, the fact that the PMOI had not established a constitutional presence in the United States in 1997 under its own name cannot possibly establish that neither the PMOI nor the NCRI had established a presence by 1999 … The other two consequences of the designation less clearly implicate interests protected by the Due Process Clause.