Case law

Settles v. United States Parole Commission

429 F.3d 1098 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 8, 2005

Relying on Koyce v. United States Board of Parole, 306 F.2d 759 (D.C. … See Brown v. Sec’y of Army, 78 F.3d 645, 648 (D.C. Cir. 1996).

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, City of Nashville and the Nashville Chamber of Commerce, City of Tampa, Florida, and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of St. Louis, Missouri, and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, City of Tampa, Florida, and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of St. Louis, Missouri, and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, City of Tampa, Florida, and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of St. Louis, Missouri, and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. National Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, City of Tampa, Florida, and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of St. Louis, Missouri, and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Intervenors

275 F.2d 632 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 10, 1959

required by Delta Air Lines v. … Gerico Investment Co. v.

Hensley v. United States

292 F. Supp. 3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 22, 2018

In this Circuit, decisions by boards for correction of military records are typically reviewed "under an 'unusually deferential' application of the arbitrary or capricious standard." Maneely v. … "As a preliminary matter, the Board did nothing improper by relying on an advisory opinion to render its decision." McDonough v. Stackley , 245 F.Supp.3d 1 , 5 (D.D.C. 2017) ; see Roberts v.

Harry Kenneth Clark v. Library of Congress

750 F.2d 89 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 24, 1984

Since, as the Supreme Court noted in Brown v. … Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 , 87 S.Ct. 675 , 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967). 18 .

State of New Jersey v. EPA

989 F.3d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 5, 2021

The Brown Memo also  7 concluded that a citizenship question would disproportionately reduce noncitizens’ self-response rates. See Brown Memo at 1, 54. … that figure to 5.8% on the basis of more recent data, see Brown Memo at 39.

Marymount Hospital, Inc. v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Hhs

19 F.3d 658 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 29, 1994

We review the Board’s decision without deference to the district court’s determination. Biloxi Regional Medical Center v. Bowen, 835 F.2d 345, 349 (D.C.Cir.1987). … V.

Kirby Produce Co. v. United States Department of Agriculture

256 F.3d 830 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 3, 2001

See Brown's Produce v. Kirby Produce Co., No. 3:96-cv-526 (E.D. Tenn. June 25, 1996). … The motion advised the ALJ of the Brown order and attached a copy.

Van Clief v. Helvering

135 F.2d 254 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 12, 1943

See decisions of the Board in Harry T. Nicolai v. Com’r, 42 B.T.A. 899 , affirmed 9 Cir., 126 F.2d 927 ; William D. P. Jarvis v. Com’r, 43 B.T.A. 439 , affirmed Helvering v. … There is nothing to the contrary in the cases cited in the Board’s opinion. The holding in American Cigar Co. v.

Dotson v. Milliken

27 App. D.C. 500 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 1906

Koch v. Emmerling, 22 How. 69, 16 L. ed. 292; McGavock v. Woodlief, 20 How. 221 , 15 L. ed. 884; Bryan v. Abert, 3 App. D. C. 180, 181; Cheatham v. Yarbrough, 90 Tenn. 11, 19 , 15 S. W. 1076 ; Washburn v. … Wofford v. McKinna, 23 Tex. 36, 46 , 76 Am. Dec. 53 ; Cheney v. Cook, 7 Wis. 413, 422 ; Walsh v. Ringer, 2 Ohio, 327, 333, 15 Am. Dec. 525 ; Brown v. Munger, 42 Minn. 482 , 44 N. W. 519 ; Armstrong v. Mudd, 10 B.

Quantum Entertainment Ltd. v. United States Department of the Interior

714 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 30, 2013

In applying this test, the court owes no deference to the Board’s retroactivity analysis under Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (1984). See I.N.S. v. St. … Furthermore, Green v.

Richard A. Howerton v. Hugh F. Rivers

326 F.2d 653 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 21, 1963

Sims v. Rives, 66 App. D.C. 24 , 84 F.2d 871 , cert, denied, 298 U.S. 682 , 56 S.Ct. 960 , 80 L.Ed. 1402 (1936). See also, Story v. Rives, 68 App. … Board of Parole, 89 U.S.App.D.C. 206 , 191 F.2d 653 (1951); and Clokey v. United States, 310 F.2d 86 (4th Cir. 1962). The Fourth Circuit case of Gilstrap v.

District of Columbia v. Barry

387 F.2d 860 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 30, 1967

United States v. Alaska S. S. Co., 253 U.S. 113, 115-116 [ 40 S.Ct. 448 , 64 L.Ed. 808 ], and cases cited; United States v. … Pierre v. United States, 319 U.S. 41 , 63 S.Ct. 910 , 87 L.Ed. 1199 (1943).

Long Beach Sec. Corp. v. Nat'l Credit Union Admin. Bd.

315 F. Supp. 3d 129 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 7, 2018

Co. v. … The same rebuttal could be applied to each of the cases on which the Board relies. The Board cites McKelvey v. Sec'y of U.S.

Helvering v. Ethel D. Co.

70 F.2d 761 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 9, 1934

A. 256; Corn Products Refining Co. v. Com’r, 22 B. T. A. 605; and Herman Frost v. Com’r, 23 B. T. A. 411. … the Board’s decision.

Schaefer v. McHugh

608 F.3d 851 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

The courts review the Correction Board’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard. Kidwell v. Department of the Army, 56 F.3d 279, 286 (D.C. Cir. 1995). … When assessing a Correction Board decision, courts employ an “unusually deferential application of the arbitrary or capricious standard.” Musengo v. White, 286 F.3d 535, 538 (D.C.

Porco v. Huerta

472 F. App'x 2 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 21, 2012

In the past, the Board had used several formulations for its deferential standard of review of ALJ credibility determinations. See, e.g., Chirino v. NTSB, 849 F.2d 1525 , 1530 & n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1988). … The Board properly examined the objective facts relating to Porco’s arrest in evaluating whether she knew her answer to Question 18v was false at the time she made it. See Cooper v.

Level the Playing Field v. Federal Election Commission

381 F. Supp. 3d 78 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 2019

The first is an "informal policy," which provides that "Board members are to refrain from serving in any official capacity with a political campaign or party while serving on the Board." (A.R. 7103.) … (Brown Decl. at ¶ 35.) Thus, third party candidates have proven that they can achieve the level of support required by the CPD.

United States v. Fredrico E. Loundmannz

472 F.2d 1376 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 26, 1973

The inference here is stronger than existed in De Bruhl v. United States, 91 U.S. … Daniels v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 250, 252 , 393 F.2d 359, 361 (1968).

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Modern Air Transport, Inc., Quaker City Airways, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Modern Air Transport, Inc., Supplemental Air Carrier Conference, United States Overseas Airlines, Inc., Quaker City Airways, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., United States Overseas Airlines, Inc., Supplemental Air Carrier Conference, Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., United States Overseas Airlines, Inc., Supplemental Air Carrier Conference, Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Modern Air Transport, Inc., Quaker City Airways, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. National Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Modern Air Transport, Inc., Quaker City Airways, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors

278 F.2d 446 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 7, 1960

TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent. … AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent.

Farmer v. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers of America (Ue) Farmer v. American Communications Ass'n. Farmer v. International Fur & Leather Workers Union of United States and Canada

211 F.2d 36 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 12, 1954

211 F.2d 36 93 U.S.App.D.C. 178 FARMER et al. v. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), et al. FARMER et al. v. AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASS'N. FARMER et al. v. … Corp. v. United States, 12 Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States, 13 and Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v.