Case law

AT&T Corp. v. FCC

970 F.3d 344 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 4, 2020

By its terms, it applies to all “competitive local exchange carriers,” and Aureon clearly falls into that category. … Moreover, specific provisions qualify general ones. See, e.g., Robertson v. Seattle Audubon Soc’y, 503 U.S. 429, 440 (1992). The fine print in Rule 51.911 is far more specific than the summary chart.

Givens v. United States Railroad Retirement Board

720 F.2d 196 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 28, 1983

Givens, is clearly and properly before this court. … First, the dispositive effect of Gebbie was clearly limited to the three petitioners involved in that case.

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.

Durns v. Bureau of Prisons

804 F.2d 701 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 12, 1986

The Court concluded that Exemption 5 applies even where the underlying privilege is qualified and may be defeated by a party’s showing of particularized need. Id. at 27 , 103 S.Ct. at 2214 . … The logic of those cases and the “prevailing judicial view” which they reflect, Charmer, 711 F.2d at 1173 , clearly indicate that the reports would not be routinely available to a party in litigation with the agency.

Norfolk Southern Railway Co. v. Solis

915 F. Supp. 2d 32 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 3, 2013

Certain railroad employees, such as employees working in shops, could qualify for both the new remedy provided in this legislation, or an existing remedy under OSHA. … 95 (1991) for the proposition that a railroad employee seeking relief for violation of the terms of a CBA is seeking protection un *44 der the RLA, and that a CBA falls under “all other law” as it appears in a statutory immunity

Roane v. Gonzales

269 F.R.D. 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 1, 2010

Paul and the existing plaintiffs assert, in part, that unless *4 the drug is “administered by a qualified individual, the condemned person may ... [experience] horrific pain[.]” (Comply 37.) … The defendants counter that Paul “cannot demonstrate that disposition of this suit will impede his ability to protect his interest” because he “could have clearly sought the relief that he is requesting ...

National Classification Committee v. United States

765 F.2d 164 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 14, 1985

. § 10706 (b)), granted motor carriers, subject to the Commission’s jurisdiction, antitrust immunity to form rate bureaus and submit collectively determined rates and classifications to the Commission. … This contention is clearly contrary to the Commission’s unequivocal and unqualified determination that employee initiation of proposals and collective docketing of such proposals in the name of the NCC violate the provisions

Frontier Broadcasting Co. v. United States

265 F.2d 353 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 12, 1959

The Commission had been seasonably informed that economic injury constituted a second and continuing basis for Frontier’s interest which, standing alone, clearly entitled it to be a party to the proceeding. … Frontier’s anticipated economic injury therefore qualified it as a party to tlie proceeding. Federal Communications Commission v. Sanders Bros.

Frederick T. Zuber v. Russell Allen, Orville Freeman, Secretary of Agriculture v. Russell Allen

402 F.2d 660 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 23, 1968

licenses, orders, regulations, provisions, and *670 acts are hereby expressly ratified, legalized, and confirmed. 21 Appellants argue that, since nearby differentials appeared in the Greater Boston order before 1937, Section 4 immunizes … The Secretary was clearly much impressed with this line of testimony.

Jacqueline P. Taylor v. Resolution Trust Corporation

56 F.3d 1497 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 1995

As we cannot say that the court’s findings were clearly erroneous, see City of Las Vegas v. … These findings are not clearly erroneous.

Public Service Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

653 F.2d 681 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 1981

To the extent that the legislative history of section 46(f) suggests a contrary result, we decline to follow it. 21 It would clearly be impossible to determine exactly what other financing a utility might have arranged in … As described in that text: [T]he firm analyzes a number of factors, then establishes a target capital structure.

Affum v. United States

566 F.3d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 26, 2009

The regulations state that, to qualify for the alternative civil money penalty, a store “shall, at a minimum, establish by substantial evidence its fulfillment of” each criterion. Id. … The trial de novo provision of the Act “is clearly broader than the review standard provided for under the Administrative Procedure Act.

Bing v. Architect Capitol

300 F. Supp. 3d 53 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 27, 2017

STANDARD OF REVIEW When defending against a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss, plaintiffs bear the burden of establishing a court's subject-matter jurisdiction. See Lujan v. … Bing did not state a claim for hostile work environment as clearly as the plaintiffs in Steele and Reshard , or indeed clearly enough for this Court to definitively find that he did include such a claim in his Amended Complaint

First Iowa Hydro-Electric Cooperative v. Federal Power Commission

151 F.2d 20 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 13, 1945

water laws, or give to a private corporation, licensed by it, the plenary power of eminent domain, 38 unless that corporation had first subjected itself to the state controls which protect the rights, powers, privileges and immunities … If Congress wished to produce such results it would speak clearly and unmistakably. On the contrary, it has required an applicant to show that he has complied with the state laws.

Center for Biological Diversity v. EPA

141 F.4th 153 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 2025

EPA clearly implies that some minority of the studies EPA considered did in fact report annual streams of emissions associated with land use change. … And such specificity is critical to verifying that the feedstocks qualify as renewable biomass.

William M. Boyer v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

732 F.2d 191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 10, 1984

Because Boyer could not file as “single” and did not file a joint return with his spouse, IRS claimed, he did not qualify for the 50 percent maximum tax under Section 1348(c). … In our view, the latter clearly does not effect a legal separation.

Coal Exporters Association of the United States, Inc. And National Coal Association v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Norfolk & Western Railway Company, Coastal States Energy Company, Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company, Nippon Steel Corporation, and Patrick W. Simmons, Intervenors. Eastern Coal Transportation Conference v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Norfolk & Western Railway Company, Coastal States Energy Company, and Patrick W. Simmons, Intervenors

745 F.2d 76 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 1, 1984

The Department of Justice took no position except to state that any such exemption must end antitrust immunity for exempted transportation. … What the Commission clearly did argue in its opinion was that market forces did establish "substantial" constraints on railroad behavior. But that is not in conflict with the existence of monopoly power.

Kennecott Utah Copper Corporation v. United States Department of the Interior, American Iron and Steel Institute, Intervenor

88 F.3d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 5, 1996

EPA as qualified by Massachusetts v. ICC and AISI. There is, however, one extension of that rule upon which we comment briefly. … The 1986 Regulations established a hierarchy of valuation methodologies.

Bachow Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

237 F.3d 683 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 6, 2001

The Commission dismissed the applications as prema- ture and later established a one-day filing window. … without violating its rules, not to process pending mutually exclusive applications at all.5 Even if McElroy stood for all that appellants read into it, they could not have obtained any "equitable interest" to immunize

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. United States of America and Surface Transportation Board, United Transportation Union, Intervenors

101 F.3d 718 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 20, 1996

Co., 69 F.3d at 587-88 , this standard is clearly met in these cases. … Because the transaction would clearly be governed by section 10901 if it fell within the Commission’s jurisdiction, labor-protective provisions are purely discretionary.