Case law

Hammon v. Barry

826 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 14, 1987

Applying those standards to the facts before it, the Johnson Court concluded that the “manifest imbalance” predicate was clearly shown in the job classification at issue. … The employer in that case had "no intention of establishing a work force whose permanent composition is dictated by rigid numerical standards." Id. at 1457; see also id. at 1454.

United States v. Garces, Angelo V.

133 F.3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 20, 1998

Menon , discussed earlier, clearly takes the view that in assessing compliance with the “immediately apparent” cli- *76 terion, postdiscovery steps needed to establish the papers’ incriminating character “count” so long as … The judge was clearly aware of the potentially prejudicial nature of the witnesses’ references to the threats, and indeed ruled them out.

Matthew Green v. DOJ

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 2, 2024

An individual who circumvents technological protection measures on a copyrighted work to make fair use of the work is immunized by the fair use defense from liability for infringing the copyright. … Even many fair or noninfringing uses for which the Librarian of Congress has authorized circumvention do not qualify as expressive.

Automotive Parts Rebuilders Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency

720 F.2d 142 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 14, 1983

It clearly wanted to mitigate the potential anticompetitive impact of the performance warranty on parts manufacturers and, to that end, directed EPA to establish a certification scheme that would minimize the warranty’s anticompetitive … The regulation clearly exceeds EPA’s statutory grant of authority and must be invalidated. 63 *395 2.

Elvin B. Miller v. Langhorne M. Bond, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, George K. Wilmoth v. The United States of America, Richard W. Weese v. The United States of America, Joseph J. Tomassetti v. The United States of America, John G. Peterson v. The United States of America v. Kaye MacSparran of the Estate of Richard T. MacSparran Decedent v. The United States of America, James J. Kelley v. The United States of America, Joseph H. Haubenstein v. The United States of America, Earl L. Haymaker v. The United States of America, Paul H. Demange v. The United States of America, David N. Darling v. The United States of America, Lloyd W. Coburn, Jr. v. The United States of America, David W. Ellis v. The United States of America, Richard G. Hart v. United States of America, Louis C. Engler v. United States of America, George H. Runner v. United States of America, William J. Craft v. United States of America, Gary Meyer v. United States of America, Andrew J. Williams v. United States of America, Edward Dishart v. Langhorne M. Bond, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration, Laurence Aldrich v. Langhorne M. Bond, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

641 F.2d 997 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 5, 1981

The district court held that though "(t)he denial of sick leave by the agency ... is not illegal per se because the burden was on the plaintiffs in the first instance to establish their entitlement to the leave .... … No agency has the discretion to refuse to grant sick leave to a qualified applicant. 31 The question is how the agency can determine whether an applicant is qualified.

Associated Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

265 F. Supp. 3d 82 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 30, 2017

Plaintiffs do not dispute that the Act qualifies as an exempting statute for the purpose of Exemption 3. (Pls. Mem. at 18); ACLU, 628 F.3d at 619 . … Here, this threshold is clearly met; Plaintiffs do not dispute that the FBI compiled the withheld information for law enforcement purposes, (Pis.

N. V. Philips' Gloeilampenfabrieken v. Atomic Energy Commission

316 F.2d 401 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 21, 1963

Petitioners’ claims described above clearly do not come within these sections. Obviously, Congress cannot deny or revoke foreign patents. … However, reference to the legislative history quite clearly demonstrates that such was not the Congressional intent.

American Equity Investment Life Insurance v. Securities & Exchange Commission

572 F.3d 923 · 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.

Taylor, Jacqueline v. FDIC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 30, 1997

But not all  disclosures qualify for protection. … But to say, "He did it," or "He made me do it," where "it" is already established, is just garden-variety finger-pointing.

Intercollegiate Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board

796 F.3d 111 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 2015

But it also directs that, “[i]n establishing rates and terms for transmissions” by such services, the Board “shall establish rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated … As we have noted, the Copyright Act directs the Board to “establish rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing

League of United Latin American Citizens v. Robert E. Hampton, Chairman of the United States Civil Service Commissioner

501 F.2d 843 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 1974

The appellants contend, however, that this case fits within the recognized exception that exhaustion is not required when it is certain that the established administrative procedures would prove unavailing. … In addition, section 11 of the 1972 amendments to Title VII, codified as 42 U.S.C. § 2000e-16, clearly provides that the Civil Service Commission is the forum of first resort in actions dealing with claims of discrimination

Halberstam v. Welch

705 F.2d 472 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 12, 1983

Abbott Labs, 512 F.Supp. 1031, 1035 (D.Mass.1981). 22 As pristine legal concepts, conspiracy and aiding-abetting can be distinguished clearly enough. … First, several courts have struggled over the question of whether silence and inaction alone can qualify as "substantial assistance."

North American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

240 F.2d 867 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 1957

infrequency as to preclude an implication of a uniform pattern of normal consistency of operation between * * * such designated points * * The Regulations further provided that a Letter of Registration might issue to a qualified … A “cease and desist” order is clearly “appropriate,” within the meaning of the Act. We conclude that the Board’s Order founded upon the violation of Section 401 of the Act and the regulations must be affirmed.

Treasure State Resource Industry Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency

805 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 3, 2015

Accordingly, any investment decisions taken in the expectation of stasis would not have qualified as having been made in reasonable reliance on preexisting law. … And the Act clearly did intend to produce final rules, since “Congress imposed deadlines on EPA and thus clearly envisioned an end to the designation process.” Catawba County, N.C. v. EPA, 571 F.3d 20, 51 (D.C.

McDonald v. Washington

15 F.3d 1126 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 15, 1994

Texas, 441 U.S. 418 , 99 S.Ct. 1804 , 60 L.Ed.2d 323 (1979), clearly more demanding than the one under which pre-1973 plaintiffs had been committed. … In fact, courts have allowed parties to point to events outside of the litigation to establish that they prevailed.

Gasser v. District of Columbia

442 F.3d 758 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 2006

She stated that the “physician’s note clearly states that no full duty while on coumadin, that he should be returned to limited duty.” … Gasser used the testimony to establish the number of jobs the Police Department regarded him as unable to perform. Dr.

Pacific Maritime Ass'n v. Federal Maritime Commission

543 F.2d 395 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1976

In addition the Court has refused to expand potential antitrust immunity for agreements not clearly covered under section 15’s emphasis on on-going arrangements. FMC v. … We believe that the facts of this case clearly distinguish themselves from Volkswagenwerk and thus require a different result.

Commissions Import Export S.A. v. Republic of the Congo

757 F.3d 321 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 11, 2014

The Company appeals, and this court has jurisdiction in view of the Congo’s waiver of any claim of sovereign immunity in the commitment letters that accompanied the promissory notes. See 28 U.S.C. § 1605(a)(1). … does not call for the [d]istrict [c]ourt automatically to accord preclusive effect to the English Court’s determinations on the Award under the Convention, but rather to assess the English Judgment under the separate (and clearly

United States v. Alfredo Leyva

916 F.3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 26, 2019

In other words, that a defendant has read the indictment does not establish that he understood “the nature of the charge.” … Due deference review lies “somewhere between de novo and ‘clearly erroneous’” review. United States v. Cano-Flores, 796 F.3d 83, 90 (D.C.

Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission and United States of America, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Intervenor. Calvert Cliffs' Coordinating Committee, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission and United States of America

449 F.2d 1109 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 23, 1971

mandated decision making process has in fact taken place and, most importantly, allows those removed from the initial process to evaluate and balance the factors on their own. 16 Of course, all of these Section 102 duties are qualified … Clearly, the review process is an appropriate stage at which to balance conflicting factors against one another.