Case law

United States v. Glenston P. Laws

808 F.2d 92 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 9, 1986

Laws’ argument on specificity is that the affidavits did not establish a nexus between the two rooms searched and an illicit drug enterprise. … The District Court, however, found that this statement was false, and on appeal this finding was sustained as not clearly erroneous. Id. at 1386 .

National Classification Committee and National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, National Classification Committee and National Motor Freight Traffic Association, Inc. v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission

765 F.2d 164 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 25, 1985

Sec. 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. … Sec. 10706 (b)(2), (3), established specific guidelines to which rate bureau agreements must conform.

Asante v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

133 F.4th 97 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 4, 2025

In 2009, California established the Quality Assurance Fee (QAF) as part of its administration of Medi-Cal. … The answer is clearly yes: The California legislature repeatedly declared QAF payments to be “supplemental Medi-Cal payments to hospitals.” Cal. Welf. & Inst. Code § 14169.50(a), (b), (d) & (e).

Marcos Montes v. Janitorial Partners, Inc.

859 F.3d 1079 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 16, 2017

If the Congress “clearly states that a threshold limitation on a statute’s scope shall count as jurisdictional,” that is the end of the matter. Id. at 515–16. … Palma’s and Zelaya’s failure to comply  9 with section 16(b) means instead that they failed to establish their cause of action. See Trudeau v. FTC, 456 F.3d 178, 183– 85 (D.C.

Marine Petroleum Company v. Champlin Petroleum Company

641 F.2d 984 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 30, 1980

This feat is accomplished by establishing “exceptional circumstances under which it is impracticable for the party seeking discovery to obtain facts or opinions on the same subject by other means.” 26 Rule 26(b)(4)(B), however … But information of this sort clearly is acquired in the process of preparation, and thus is within the ambit of Rule 26(b)(4)(B).

KIRO, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

631 F.2d 900 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 7, 1980

Simultaneous Duplication Regulations Under the Commission’s simultaneous duplication regulations, qualifying television stations are entitled to protection unless a duplicating CATV system can qualify for a waiver. 26 Two … Moreover, unlike sensitive information on the financial condition of the station, it is clearly not confidential. See note 32 supra. .

Judge Rotenberg Educ. Ctr., Inc. v. U.S. Food & Drug Admin.

376 F. Supp. 3d 47 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 21, 2019

"To qualify for the deliberative process privilege, an intra-agency memorandum must be both pre-decisional and deliberative." Abtew , 808 F.3d at 898 (citing Coastal States Gas Corp. v. … Thus, the defendants have established chronology even without a date.

Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Delta Air Lines, Inc

863 F.2d 87 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 16, 1988

established by the parties. … Denial of such a certificate is required in order to qualify for permanent disability benefits.” This is the same reason that the Committee gave for denying Hazeltine’s application for benefits.

General Accounting Office v. General Accounting Office Personnel Appeals Board, Morris L. Shaller, Intervenor

698 F.2d 516 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 1983

[T]he ultimate responsibility [for the adoption of implementing regulations] clearly rested with the Board[.] ... … Representation by the General Counsel in appeals cases may, for example, provide (1) a valuable screening function, since petitioners found not to qualify for assistance by the General Counsel might be less likely to pursue

Donald Trump v. Mazars USA, LLP

940 F.3d 710 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 11, 2019

Tr. 15 (confirming that the President asserts no claim of executive privilege or immunity); see also Couch v. … Eastland, 387 U.S. 82 (1967) (holding that for purposes of establishing immunity from suit, a subcommittee could ratify a subpoena previously issued “without prior authorization from the [s]ubcommittee”).

Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

96 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 16, 1938

Applications for rehearing shall be governed by such general rules as the Commission may establish. … This statement by the Commission is also clearly incorrect.

Am. Ctr. for Law & Justice v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

325 F. Supp. 3d 162 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 7, 2018

Indeed, it is well established that such failures do not render the government's search unreasonable. See, e.g., Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency , 315 F.3d 311 , 315 (D.C. Cir. 2003). … Similarly, while attorney work product enjoys only a qualified protection from discovery in civil litigation, the qualified nature of that protection is irrelevant under FOIA. See Williams & Connolly v.

Dorothy Healey v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Metromedia, Inc., Intervenor

460 F.2d 917 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 3, 1972

Healey time to reply, to which, we submit, she is entitled under the rules and principles established by the F.C.C.” The petitioner alleged that “[a] demand has been made and rejected that Mrs. … As Judge Tamm wrote in Democratic National Committee, supra, “ . we have clearly stated time after time, ad infinitum ad nauseam, that the key to the doctrine is no mystical formula but rather the exercise of reasonable standards

Yah Kai World Wide Enters., Inc. v. Napper

292 F. Supp. 3d 337 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 21, 2018

This focused effort is warranted, because the record clearly establishes Napper's deliberate disregard for Prince Immanuel's trademark rights, and thus Plaintiffs are entitled to the Restaurant's profits during the period … Taco Cabana, Inc. , 505 U.S. 763 , 768, 112 S.Ct. 2753 , 120 L.Ed.2d 615 (1992) ("[I]t is common ground that § 43(a) protects qualifying un registered trademarks and that the general principles qualifying a mark for registration

United States v. Ronald J. Perholtz, United States of America v. Franklin W. Jackson, United States of America v. Gregory W. Fletcher

842 F.2d 343 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 1988

At this time, John Gentile, who later testified for the government and repaid $40,000 received as bribes in exchange for immunity from prosecution, was Assistant Postmaster General for Finance. … While the proof used to establish these separate elements may in particular cases coalesce, proof of one does not necessarily establish the other.

United States v. Bernard L. Barker, United States of America v. Eugenio R. Martinez

546 F.2d 940 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 17, 1976

It is enough that he intentionally performed acts which, under the circumstances of the case, would have been clearly in violation of federal law, absent any other defense. … Al and A6, as follows: Justice Department sources said that Helms clearly thought he had the authority to approve a break-in and did so to complete a security investigation. . . .

Mead v. Phillips

135 F.2d 819 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 30, 1943

executors and trustees, until September. 23, 1935, when Katharine Phillips — sister of the testator, a beneficiary under the will, one of the executors, and a trustee of the trust created by the testator —was appointed and qualified … And he may clearly do so since the statute.

William R. Leach v. United States

334 F.2d 945 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 19, 1964

Clearly suggesting some of the many distinctions between § 4208(b) and Rule 35 *956 is the language of the Supreme Court in United States v. … D.C.Code § 24-106 This statute provides in part for “a qualified psychiatrist and a qualified psychologist whose services shall be available to * * * (1) In criminal cases, the judges of the district court * * The majority

Carlisle Tire & Rubber Co. v. United States Customs Service

663 F.2d 210 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 17, 1980

At the same time, we affirm the district court’s finding that the remaining portions of four documents were immune from disclosure under Exemption l. 12 .1. ANALYSIS A. … Exemption 1 Under Exemption 1, an agency may withhold documents only if they apply to matters which are “(A) specifically authorized under criteria established by an Executive order to be kept secret in the interest of national

Washington Terminal Co. v. Boswell

124 F.2d 235 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 18, 1941

Because of this they, perhaps better than lawyers, are qualified to interpret and apply them. Whether so or not, their judgment should carry weight when the judicial stage of controversy is reached. … But, in any event, if it is assumed that the employer may wait until the period of limitations has passed and then bring its action, its right to bring it within that time is clearly barred.