Case law

Gottfried v. Federal Communications Commission

655 F.2d 297 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 1981

No standards had yet been promulgated, however, when the Department of Education was established on May 4, 1980. … In this respect — a mass media service to the public which is based entirely on a Federal license under a public interest standard — the situation clearly parallels the Federal policy in contract awards. * * * .

John Doe v. Joseph Digenova

779 F.2d 74 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 17, 1985

In this instance, the Privacy Act clearly imposes more restrictions on the release of information than section 3301 of title 38.... … We do hold, however, that the district court clearly erred in dismissing the claim on the basis that it did.

Mohammed Jibril v. Alejandro Mayorkas

101 F.4th 857 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 14, 2024

However, the District Court held that the proposed amendment would be futile, because the Jibrils sued federal officers in their official capacity and they had not identified a waiver of sovereign immunity to support a claim … We review “[t]he fact-finding of the court to support or deny standing . . . under the clearly erroneous standard.” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 907 (D.C. Cir. 1987).

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington v. FEC (ORDER IN SLIP OPINION FORMAT)

923 F.3d 1141 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 14, 2019

Congress established the Federal Election Commission at the front line of campaign finance law enforcement. … If such an invocation does bar evaluation of the Commissioners’ legal conclusions, it guts the case-by-case approach the FEC has adopted for determining when groups qualify as “political committees.”

Crawford v. United States

30 App. D.C. 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 1907

Reading these sections together, it seems clear that section 215-alone determines those who are qualified to act as jurors in this. … C. 125, cited in appellant’s brief, is clearly distinguishable from the cases cited.

Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency

369 F. Supp. 3d 128 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 27, 2019

"Chronic exposure [to cadmium] leads to adverse effects on growth, reproduction, immune and endocrine systems, development and behavior in aquatic organisms." Id. … Agency communications with an outside consultant qualify as "intra-agency" communications.

Vernon Walker Huffman v. United States, Dennis Eugene Pryba v. United States

470 F.2d 386 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 1972

This description clearly states the judge’s abhorrence and almost as clearly reveals the lack of explicit sexual activity 29 The Court has also reversed a state criminal conviction based on the film, I, A Woman, 30 Although … As discussed above, this type of magazine is clearly distinguishable from the genre involved here.

Guard v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Southern California Edison Company, Intervenors

753 F.2d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 1984

In addition to determining that the standard required medical arrangements covering the general public, the Licensing Board clearly stated that it *1147 read section 50.47(b)(12) to encompass off-site persons who, even if … The Commission made it plain that its purpose in posing and responding to the certified questions was to establish guidance applicable not only to SONGS but to all future applications.

Council For Urological Interes v. Sylvia Mathews Burwell

790 F.3d 212 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 2015

Reg. at 878 (“given the clearly expressed congressional intent in the legislative history, we are permitting ‘per use’ payments”). … If “rental charges” means “rental income,” then per-click leases do not qualify for the equipment exception.

Carter-Frost v. Dist. of Columbia

305 F. Supp. 3d 60 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 9, 2018

Lateral transfers, as here, qualify as adverse employment actions only when the reassignment carries with it "significantly different responsibilities." Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360 , 364 (D.C. … True, but clearly it cannot make this argument for the second detail to the Fifth District. Id. at 12.

Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Seattle & North Coast Railroad Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, American Short Line Railroad Association, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Pittsburgh & Lake Erie Railroad Company, American Short Line Railroad Association, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Angelina and Neches River Railroad, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Weyerhaeuser Company, Intervenors. Brae Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, E.F. Hutton Credit Corporation, Intervenors. American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Brown Transport Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Freight Users Association of Long Island, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Angelina and Neches River Railroad, Brick Association of North Carolina, American Trucking Associations, Inc., National Grain and Feed Association, American Newspaper Publishers Association, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Intervenors. International Paper Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route of American Trucking Associations, Inc., Brick Association of North Carolina, Intervenors. The National Industrial Transportation League v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Traffic League, Inc., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Eastern Industrial Traffic League, Inc., Brick Association of North Carolina, Volkswagen of America, Inc., Intervenors. Itel Corporation, Rail Division v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, East Camden & Highland Railroad Company, Funding Systems Railcar, Inc., Southwest Forest Industries, Inc., Valdosta Southern Railroad Company, Apalachicola Northern Railroad Co., Sabine River & Northern Railroad Company, Marinette, Tomahawk & Western Railroad Co., Little Rock & Western Railway Corp., Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. Ford Motor Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Continental Forest Industries, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sysco Corporation v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Brick Association of North Carolina, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Patrick W. Simmons v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. The Aluminum Association, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Canadian Pulp and Paper Association, Brick Association of North Carolina, Burlington Northern Railroad Company, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. The Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company, Delaware and Hudson Railway Company and Maine Central Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. Canadian National Railway Company and Canadian Pacific Limited v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Southern Pacific Transportation Company, Intervenors. National Railway Utilization Corporation, Pickens Railroad Co., Peninsula Terminal Co., the Mississippian Railway, Inc., Graham County Railroad, Inc., Atlantic & Western Railway Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Central Vermont Railway, Inc., Detroit, Toledo and Ironton Railroad Company and Grand Trunk Western Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sea-Land Service, Inc. And Sea-Land Freight Service, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Totem Ocean Trailer Express, Inc., Intervenor. H.C. Spinks Clay Co., Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Intervenors. Sandersville Railroad Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Illinois Central Gulf Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Chattahoochee Industrial Railroad, Great Southern Paper, Leaf River Forest Products, Inc., and the Old Augusta Railroad Co. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Bessemer and Lake Erie Railroad Company and Elgin, Joliet and Eastern Railway Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, American Paper Institute, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Lamoille Valley Railroad Co., of Morrisville, Lamoille County, Vermont v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Rubber Manufacturers Association v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, National Industrial Transportation League, Intervenor. Evans Products Company v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Board of Port Commissioners for the City of Oakland v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, the National Industrial Transportation League v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission

740 F.2d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 24, 1984

Such bald assertions do not qualify as reasoned decisionmaking. … Clearly, the plain meaning of the word "exempt" connotes a lessening of regulation, a decrease in regulatory burdens. Cf. Maine Water Co. v.

Stewart v. Azar

366 F. Supp. 3d 125 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 27, 2019

The Commonwealth is the party that most clearly contends that fiscal sustainability is an independent objective of the Medicaid Act. … . §§ 1396a, 1396a(a)(10)(A), the Court believes the qualifier is as easily understood as establishing a ceiling as it is lowering the floor. That said, it cannot find his interpretation unreasonable under Chevron .

The Elmo Division of Drive-X Company, Inc. v. Paul Rand Dixon, the Federal Trade Commission

348 F.2d 342 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 6, 1965

cost-justification defense presumably could consider the validity of that rule 3 Skinner & Eddy is especially pertinent, since the statute there provided that the Commission might allow the new filing only after a hearing had established … Jurisdiction in the District Court was sustained to enjoin the Board from depriving some of the affected employees of a substantive right clearly granted to them by statute.

Otis Elevator Co. v. George A. Fuller Co.

44 App. D.C. 287 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 3, 1916

For example, the Otis Company might have indemnified the Fuller Company against the very thing that happened, which would be determinative of this case, but not material in establishing the liability of the Fuller Company … The distinction is clearly pointed out by Lord Bowen in Donovan v. Laing, W. & D. Constr.

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, George Angle, D/B/A Kansas Refined Helium Company v. National Labor Relations Board

547 F.2d 575 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 4, 1977

Morrisette, supra, at 1307 , and the Supreme Court, see cases cited id. n. 34, that clearly take a contrary view of the "clearly erroneous" standard. … Nowhere does the Board provide arguments or direct us to record evidence that might establish the commission of reversible error by the Master.

Alabama Power Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission

852 F.2d 1361 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 2, 1988

Steel. 20 Attempting to rebut the charge that it was asleep at the switch, Conrail suggests that it was in fact a party in the ICC rulemaking and thus qualifies as a "party aggrieved" under section 2344. … Jurisdiction to entertain this proceeding is clearly derived from the protesting shippers' timely petitions for judicial review of the Commission's rulemaking order.

Policy & Research, LLC v. U.S. Dep't of Health & Human Servs.

313 F. Supp. 3d 62 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 11, 2018

And because HHS terminated Plaintiffs' grant funding within the meaning of the HHS regulations without any explanation and in contravention of its own regulations, HHS's action easily qualifies as an arbitrary and capricious … Both the plain language of the regulations and the agency's own characterization of its conduct with respect to Plaintiffs' projects (at least at the time of the action) clearly establish that the answer is "yes." Cf.

Communications Vending Corporation Of Arizona, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

365 F.3d 1064 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 30, 2004

Communications, and the CFC Remand Order all clearly established that "`end users' of public payphones are exempt from the EUCL charges," id. — an exemption that applies with equal force to IPP- and LEC-owned payphones. … The Commission rejected the IPPs' theory that their cause of action did not accrue until the unlawfulness of the charges was clearly established. See id. at 24,223, ¶ 52.

Honeywell International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

253 F.3d 125 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 29, 2001

To support this argument, the company contends that "[t]he Duration Clause [in the EBA] stated in the plainest terms both (1) the precise moment in time when the eligibility to qualify for EBA benefits would terminate … The company is wrong, however, in contending that eligibility could not be established after June 6, 1997.

State of Montana v. William P. Clark, Secretary of the Department of the Interior

749 F.2d 740 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 6, 1985

. § 1291 (9), the parties do not seriously dispute that the ceded strip qualifies as “Indian land” as defined by the statute. 5 Id. … Given our resolution of the statutory question, we need not decide whether the ceded strip qualifies as a reservation under 30 U.S.C. § 1232 (g)(2). 6 .