Case law

Citizens for Safe Power, Inc., and Audubon Naturalist Council v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Maine Yankee Atomic Power Company, Intervenor

524 F.2d 1291 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 22, 1975

To the extent now relevant this stipulation provided for admission into evidence of the AEC’s EIS, stated that the opinions and conclusions expressed therein were those of qualified persons, and defined the only contested … Seaborg, 312 F.Supp. 1205, 1231 (D.Colo.1970): “Radiation protection standards are established by the various agencies through a complex process.

Sparshott, Shan v. Feld Entrtnmnt Inc

311 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 29, 2002

The discovery did not itself tell her that it was Smith who was wiretapping her, but was clearly evidence of a violation by someone. … Clearly the parties need not always be granted equal amounts of time to try their case.

Jephunneh Lawrence v. Elmer B. Staats

640 F.2d 427 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 5, 1981

An “independent establishment” is defined by the *432 preceding section 104 to include the General Accounting Office as follows: For the purpose of this title, “independent establishment” means— (1) an establishment in the … (emphasis added), but qualifies its application to the legislative and judicial branches with the phrase “having positions in the competitive service”.

Alldata Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

245 F.3d 803 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 13, 2001

Basically the list will include established reps that are below 2 or 3 units YTD [i.e., since March 31]. … On June 12, Abbadessa e-mailed Weiffenbach to suggest that "we draw up an 'agreement' which clearly states what the [Snap-On] dealers['] obligations are, ... and have any dealer who is interested in participating sign.

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. John T. Connor

418 F.2d 1142 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 1969

To implement these ends Congress saw fit to establish the United States Maritime Commission, 46 U.S.C. § 1111 et seq. (1964), as its regulatory arm. … There the Board held that “[i]n determining whether [one] is operating an ‘existing service’ within the meaning of section 605(c), we must look to the entire scope of the applicant’s operation * * * * To qualify as an existing

Edward J. Fleming, III v. Federal Trade Commission Milton Bradley Company v. Federal Trade Commission

670 F.2d 311 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 12, 1982

The simplistic dichotomy proposed by appellants ignores the inherent ambiguity of the treble damage action, which clearly represents a confluence of all these characteristics. … There is no doubt that a civil antitrust damage suit brought by a state attorney general qualifies as an official law enforcement purpose for disclosure under the FTC Act.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Charles W. Steadman, (Two Cases)

967 F.2d 636 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 1992

Under the materiality standard appellants themselves proposed — 5% of the Funds’ NAV — $694,000 would qualify. … The district court’s acceptance of the SEC’s computation was, accordingly, clearly erroneous.

Animal Legal Defense Fund v. Sonny Perdue

872 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 29, 2017

This entire argument rests on the cited agency regulations, which themselves focus on what an applicant must “demonstrate” in order to qualify for either an initial license or a renewal. *614 Id. at 31-38. … We will instead focus our analysis on the agency’s consistent interpretation, clearly evidenced by the regulatory history, that the AWA leaves to the Secretary’s discretion how to handle license renewals, and that as part

Dan-Air Services, Ltd. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

475 F.2d 408 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 15, 1973

reason to believe that BMA [and] Dan-Air . . . may be regularly engaging in foreign air transportation under terms and conditions not in conformity with Part 214 in that, inter alia, persons are being transported who do not qualify … Clearly notice would serve little purpose where the Board is under no compulsion to consider the arguments and objections of the parties affected.

Papago Tribal Utility Authority v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

610 F.2d 914 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 11, 1980

Canons of Construction 43 For the reasons we have articulated, we believe the parties' covenant on rate changes clearly bars unilateral increases of the contract rates. … any evidence of adequate consideration to CP&L for total surrender of its fixed-rate contract rights reinforces the obvious grammatical interpretation of Section 5, i. e., that the "authorized" provision was intended to qualify

W. Lee Birch v. United States Postal Service

803 F.2d 1206 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 24, 1986

ROBINSON, III, Circuit Judge: This case is before us on appeal from a summary judgment in favor of the United States Postal Service immunizing from mandatory disclosure -parts of records sought by W. … “In order to pass the FOIA Exemption 7 threshold,” we said, a criminal law enforcement agency must establish that its investigatory activities are realistically based on a legitimate concern that federal laws have been or

Dr. G.V v. Rao v. James A. Baker, Secretary of State

898 F.2d 191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 13, 1990

Whether viewed as a jurisdictional provision, a waiver of sovereign immunity, or an express limitation on a right created by Congress, the 30-day statutory limit for filing a civil suit brooked no exceptions, according to … These changes clearly place greater reliance on more flexible deadlines at the same time they assume the validity of a constructive notice requirement.

Summerfield v. Sunshine Book Company

221 F.2d 42 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 9, 1955

Olson, 1931, 283 U.S. 697, 715-716 , 51 S.Ct. 625, 631 , 75 L.Ed. 1357 , Chief Justice Hughes said: "The objection has also been made that the principle as to immunity from previous restraint is stated too broadly, if every … This governmental power has always been recognized in this country and is firmly established.

Cavalier v. Catholic Univ. of Am.

306 F. Supp. 3d 9 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 27, 2018

It is required, however, to respond to any such known acts of harassment in a manner that is not "clearly unreasonable." Id. … Court of Appeals listed a series of relationships that might qualify-"psychiatrist/therapist and patient," "doctor-patient," "funeral home or hospital" and the family of a decedent, and "persons who are appointed to act as

Sparshott v. Feld Entertainment, Inc.

311 F.3d 425 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 10, 2003

The discovery did not itself tell her that it was Smith who was wiretapping her, but was clearly evidence of a violation by someone. … Clearly the parties need not always be granted equal amounts of time to try their case.

Business Executives' Move for Vietnam Peace v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Post-Newsweek Stations, Capital Area, Inc., Intervenor. Democratic National Committee v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, American Broadcasting Companies, Inc. And Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., Intervenors

450 F.2d 642 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 1971

In a leading case, the Commission's powers over program content were attacked and upheld with reference solely to the licensees' right of immunity from governmental interference with their "speech." … If an individual is interviewed for a news program, he may expect his comments to be abbreviated and edited; reporters' commentary will qualify what he has to say.

William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor on Behalf of Thomas L. Williams v. Peabody Coal Company and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, Chapman Merrell v. Peabody Coal Company and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, United Mine Workers of America on Behalf of James Rowe v. Peabody Coal Company, William E. Brock, Secretary of Labor, on Behalf of I.B. Acton v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission, United Mine Workers of America v. Jim Walter Resources, Inc., and Federal Mine Safety and Health Review Commission

822 F.2d 1134 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 7, 1987

In a similar vein, underground miners must also receive training when assigned new tasks. 23 10 The regulations establish a similar scheme for training surface miners. … of their training status: 40 The laid off miner clearly is more than just a preferred job applicant.

Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v. Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union 639

913 F.2d 948 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 4, 1990

For example, the Fourth Circuit explicitly modified a previous decision that had arguably established a strict benefits test, explaining that a defendant’s efforts need not produce financial profit for the enterprise to qualify … However, we are confident that if Congress had intended to so dramatically alter our legal terrain, it would have done so clearly and unequivocally.

Soft Drink Workers Union Local 812 v. National Labor Relations Board

657 F.2d 1252 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 3, 1980

Denver Building & Construction Trades Council, supra, 341 U.S. at 688-689 , 71 S.Ct. at 951 , and the legality of a union's ultimate goal cannot immunize any otherwise illegal intermediate objective, Amalgamated Meat Cutters … "In the sensitive area of peaceful picketing Congress has dealt explicitly with isolated evils which experience has established flow from such picketing." Labor Board v.

Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D.C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor. The Black United Front v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission

436 F.2d 233 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 1970

harm.' 8 Should, upon our investigation of the merits, it eventuate that the fare increases made possible by Order No. 1052 were unwarranted, the excess fares can be recouped for the benefit of the riding public by the establishment … Washington, D.C. does not, hence it does not appear that the 40-cents fare level, considering the question in regard to the stay only, is clearly unjustified to provide essential operating revenue for the transit system.