Case law

American Mutual Insurance Company of Boston and Rose Brothers Company v. Willie B. Jones

426 F.2d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 28, 1970

Such compensation shall be paid out of the special fund established in [ 33 U.S.C. § 944 (1964)]. Not without some hesitation, we conclude that § 8(f) (1) should not apply in the circumstances of this case. … Longshoremen’s Act has followed the more general rule, and sought to define certain classes of disability as “manifest” or “latent” without regard to the *1268 employér’s actual knowledge of the employee’s condition. 28 Clearly

Asa Investerings Partnership,appellants v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

201 F.3d 505 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 1, 2000

Because the LIBOR notes provided for 20 quarterly payments at a variable rate, and the PPNs were not sold on an established securities market, the sale of the PPNs qualified for use of the installment method. … We agree if engaging in business activity were sufficient to validate a partnership ASA would qualify.

Howard v. Bradshaw and Ona Bradshaw v. United States of America, Howard v. Bradshaw and Ona Bradshaw v. United States

443 F.2d 759 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 11, 1971

The lesson to be drawn from a combined reading of Brooks and Feres is that a suit by a member of the military establishment against the U.S. … nature of the relationship of the United States to the District Disability Act is not of such character as to justify immunity from suit.

Alaska Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

545 F.2d 194 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 28, 1976

Prior to 1951, ASA qualified as an Alaskan air carrier since its authority was confined to intra-Alaska operations. … These allegations clearly contemplated violations of the Federal Aviation Act by ASA, thus coming within the purview of § 1482(a).

Blue Ridge Environmental Defense League v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

668 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 17, 2012

The Commission also directed the staff to offer a hearing opportunity on the question of whether TVA had established “good cause” for reinstatement. … Third, lest there is any possible doubt in this matter, it cannot be gainsaid that the NRC’s order published on March 13 qualifies as final.

Nippon Shinyaku Co. v. Iancu

369 F. Supp. 3d 226 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 27, 2019

Two of the patents at issue there did not qualify for the USPTO's Interim Procedure because they were issued before August 5, 2009. Id. at 1376 . … Pursuant to 37 C.F.R. § 1.322 , "[t]he Director may issue a certificate of correction pursuant to 35 U.S.C. 254 to correct a mistake in a patent, incurred through the fault of the Office, which mistake is clearly disclosed

Rochelle Garza v. Eric Hargan [ORDER IN SLIP OPINION FORMAT]

874 F.3d 735 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 24, 2017

United States, 527 U.S. 173, 184 , 119 S.Ct. 1923 , 144 L.Ed.2d 161 (1999). 4 But in the analogous context of qualified immunity, we are “permitted ... to avoid avoidance—that is, to determine whether a right exists before … examining” the narrower question of whether the right “was clearly established” at the time an official acted.

In Re: Cheney

406 F.3d 723 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 2003

Establish- ing National Energy Policy Development Group, Jan. 29, 2001. Established within the Office of the President and chaired by Vice President Richard B. … There clearly has been no final judgment in the underlying case here, and no criminal con- tempt order.

Mark P. Schlefer v. United States of America

702 F.2d 233 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 1983

The examples included in the record are peremptory legal opinions or directives from the Chief Counsel, written with a clearly implied expectation that they are to be followed. … In short, document updating may confirm that the final product is not deliberative, but the absence of updating does not establish that the unrevised document is. D.

Shaker Aamer v. Barack Obama

742 F.3d 1023 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 11, 2014

We thus turn to the question of whether petitioners have established their entitlement to injunctive relief. … We agree with the government, however, that the law of this circuit clearly forecloses petitioners’ RFRA claim. In Rasul v.

Family Division Trial Lawyers of the Superior court-d.c., Inc. v. H. Carl Moultrie, Chief Judge, D.C. Superior Court

725 F.2d 695 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1984

However, local judicial administration is not immune from attacks in federal court on the ground that some of its practices violate federal constitutional rights. See District of Columbia Court of Appeals v. … While we agree with the district court that some pro bono requirements do not constitute a “taking,” we think it equally clear that an unreasonable amount of required uncompensated service might so qualify.

Renard G. Davis v. Richard H. Ichord, Quentin Young v. Richard H. Ichord

442 F.2d 1207 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 20, 1970

As to the former appellants urge that the mandate, Rule XI as amended, is overly broad and vague in authorizing investigations into "propaganda" which would include "clearly protected activity." … Perhaps this doctrine means that actions of certain Congressmen may be immune from judicial scrutiny if all actions are taken by Congressmen themselves, but lose that immunity if the Congressmen call on non-elected staffs

Chamber of Commerce v. Environmental Protection Agency

642 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 29, 2011

Cir. 1998) (finding it unnecessary to address the standing of a party whose presence or absence is immaterial to a suit’s outcome, where another petitioner clearly has standing). … Indeed, notwithstanding their use of “virtually” as a qualifier, the petitioners do not describe any way in which the standards will differ.

Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

826 F.2d 1074 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 1987

In discerning this distinction, the court clearly la-belled Laidlaw a case of ‘. … Merwin clearly qualifies as a case of first impression under the Retail, Wholesale analysis, which, the dissent acknowledges, is the "seminal case fixing the law of the circuit for retroactive application of agency adjudications

Barbara Kowal v. DOJ

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 16, 2024

FOIA Exemption 6 protects “personnel … and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy.” 5 U.S.C. § 552(b)(6). … Moreover, Kowal fails to establish any cognizable public interest in disclosure.

Fonville v. District of Columbia

230 F.R.D. 38 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 25, 2005

Both the deliberative process and law enforcement privileges are qualified, common law executive privileges. … As for defendant’s statutory objections, D.C.Code § 1-631.01 states: “All official personnel records of the District government shall be established, maintained, and disposed of in a manner designed to ensure the greatest

Ashland Exploration, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

631 F.2d 817 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 29, 1980

Such payments were required to qualify under the conditions imposed by the applicable rulemaking order. … Such agency actions are clearly valid. See City of Chicago v. FPC, 128 U.S.App.D.C. 107 , 385 F.2d 629 , 641-42 (1967), cert. denied, 390 U.S. 945 , 88 S.Ct. 1028 , 19 L.Ed.2d 1133 (1968). 18 .

Hardy v. Ross (In re Hardy)

589 B.R. 217 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 11, 2018

As previously discussed, this Court concludes that the turnover order was properly entered and the record clearly establishes that Ms. Hardy did not comply with the Bankruptcy Court's order. Indeed, Ms. … As discussed, the commercial real estate property was clearly property of the estate pursuant to 11 U.S.C. § 541 .

Johnson v. Rudolph

16 F.2d 525 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 6, 1926

Baker, supra, as qualified by French v. Barber Asphalt Co., 181 U. S. 324 , 21 S. Ct. 625 , 45 L. Ed. 879 , and Wight v. Davidson, 181 U. S. 371 , 21 S. Ct. 616 , 45 L. … The decision in that case clearly rests upon the implied consent of the property owners, because of the failure of a majority to protest, and in view of the lack of physical inequalities.

Natl Fam Plng Hlth v. Gonzales, Alberto

468 F.3d 826 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 14, 2006

Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (citations and internal quotations omitted).  5 An actual withdrawal of funding from the association’s members would clearly qualify, but the … Furthermore, even if self-inflicted harm qualified as an injury it would not be fairly traceable to the defendant’s  9 challenged conduct.