Case law

Mead Data Central, Inc. v. United States Department of the Air Force

566 F.2d 242 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 28, 1977

In order to show that the district court’s decision was incorrect as a substantive matter, Mead must establish that it was either based on an error of law or a factual predicate which is clearly erroneous. . … On the current record it does not qualify for exemption, and, if segregable, it must be disclosed. . See Hawkes v. IRS, 507 F.2d 481, 484 (6th Cir. 1974). . See Westinghouse Elec. Corp. v.

United States v. Rufus Brown

461 F.2d 134 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 1972

And it is entirely unclear to me why the presence of counsel at the earlier lineup —which, by hypothesis, failed to yield a positive identification — is thought to immunize the defendant from prejudice at the second identification … I can see no justification for expanding the anomalous exception created by Brown, or for launching a further assault on the integrity of the principles established in Ash. . See United States v.

Richard J. Orloski v. Federal Election Commission

795 F.2d 156 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 11, 1986

He also stated that the Senior Citizens Advisory Committee was one of several issue-oriented, non-political, nonpartisan advisory groups established by Ritter several years before. … Clearly, the FEC’s interpretation is one of the most favorable to corporations and incumbents that the agency could have adopted.

Loma Linda-Inland Consortium for Healthcare Educ. v. NLRB

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 25, 2023

Neither argument succeeds at this time. 1 With respect to Leedom’s first prong, Loma Linda Health fails to establish that the current proceeding clearly violates a specific … We have emphasized the Board must dismiss cases where it clearly lacks jurisdiction. See Carroll College, Inc. v. NLRB, 558 F.3d 568, 574 (D.C.

Carr v. District of Columbia

587 F.3d 401 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 20, 2009

I could see and hear this clearly from inside Cruiser 18 . . . .” Decl. of Patrick Keller ¶ 6 (Feb. 26, 2008). … The court concluded, “These kinds of generalized statements are legally insufficient to establish probable cause. . . .

Joseph P. Londrigan v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

670 F.2d 1164 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 31, 1981

The reasoning of those courts, and of the trial court in this case, is clearly proper. … that it was either based on an error of law or a factual predicate which is clearly erroneous. .

Jens Porup v. CIA

997 F.3d 1224 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 21, 2021

“The burden of establishing mootness rests on the party that raises the issue,” Motor & Equip. Mfrs. Ass’n v. Nichols, 142 F.3d 449, 459 (D.C. … Those sworn statements sufficiently establish that “no portions of the withheld documents may be segregated and released.”

United States v. Renford George Smith

27 F.3d 649 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 1994

Not only does the Commission appear reasonably to understand “mitigating circumstances” to include matters unconnected to blameworthiness, it has imposed very few categorical limits on what may qualify. … It is hard to believe that a factor relevant to establishment of a guidelines sentence is not either a mitigating or aggravating circumstance.

Paraskevaides v. Four Seasons Washington

292 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 14, 2002

The plain language of the statute states quite clearly that a hotel must "display[ ] conspicuously in the guest and public rooms of [the hotel] a printed copy" of the limiting statute (or summary thereof). D.C. … Supp. 2d at 26 ("The common law rule of infra hospitium, to the extent that it exists in DC, has been limited and qualified by" the Innkeep- er Statute.) (emphasis added).

Anr Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

988 F.2d 1229 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 26, 1993

Id. at 1021-30, 1044. 11 FERC responded with a succession of orders establishing a crediting system to mitigate the effects of open access. … The disputed passage of Order No. 500-I, as now understood, radically qualifies the latitude offered by this portion of Order No. 500-H.

American Oversight v. U.S. Dep't of Justice

375 F. Supp. 3d 50 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 2019

Eligibility American Oversight may establish that it "has substantially prevailed" by showing that it "obtained relief through either ... a judicial order ... … Understood in this light, the Court's June 12 and August 14, 2017 minute orders qualify as "judicial orders" within the meaning of the FOIA fees provision.

United States of America, Appellee/cross-Appellant v. Sharon M. Shepherd, A/K/A Sharon S. Ortega, Appellant/cross-Appellee

102 F.3d 558 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 4, 1997

Clearly, the lateness of Shepherd’s request to plea was a proper factor for the court to consider. … Turning to Binion’s challenges to his convictions, our discussion is brief because his challenges clearly lack merit. Continuance.

Huls America Inc. v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator, and the Environmental Protection Agency

83 F.3d 445 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 1996

Shalala, 10 F.3d 854, 857 (D.C.Cir.1993) (regulation precluding certain hospitals from ever qualifying as “sole community hospitals” *451 on the basis of location alone was permissible construction of statute, even though … EPCRA establishes a two-level scheme of regulation, with the EHS fist constituting the first and the TPQ the second level.

Grant Thornton v. OFFICE OF COMPTROLLER, CURRENCY

514 F.3d 1328 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2008

We assume without deciding that an accounting firm like Grant Thornton can qualify as an independent contractor. The relevant substantive provisions of FIRREA echo the definition. … as claiming that the “unsafe or unsound practice” in which Grant Thornton allegedly engaged was Keystone’s own fraud, see id. at 20, its final decision identified the practice as Grant Thornton’s conduct of the audit: “Clearly

Rko General, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Multi-State Communications, Inc., Intervenor. Rko General, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fidelity Television, Inc., Multi-State Communications, Inc., Intervenors. Rko General, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Fidelity Television, Inc., New England Television Corporation, Dudley Station Corporation, Multi-State Communications, Inc., Community Broadcasting of Boston, Inc., Intervenors

670 F.2d 215 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 4, 1981

First and foremost, the conduct of RKO at issue has been found to be clearly improper only in retrospect. … More than a month later, in January 1976, RKO clearly decided to stonewall the opposition and the FCC.

Winter Park Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Rainbow Broadcasting Company, Metro Broadcasting, Inc., Winter Park Chamber of Commerce and City of Winter Park, Intervenors. Metro Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Rainbow Broadcasting Company and Winter Park Communications, Inc., Intervenors

873 F.2d 347 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 21, 1989

We also find that this case is clearly controlled by West Michigan Broadcasting Co. v. … Nor could it possibly be said that the appropriations acts clearly establish a remedial policy, in light of the textual ambiguity concerning the word "policy" in the appropriations acts, their legislative histories, and the

Mayeske v. International Ass'n of Fire Fighters

905 F.2d 1548 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 8, 1990

Gannon to Ted Kastelic at 1 (July 9, 1985) (“I want it clearly understood that Betty Jo Mayeske’s salary shall not exceed the salary of the other IAFF Department Directors____”), J.A. at A407; Memorandum from John A. … (C) The plan meets the requirements of paragraph (2)[, which establishes an "average benefit percentage test”]. 26 U.S.C. § 410 (b)(1) (amended 1986). .

Ronda L. Davis v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 4, 2026

We need not wade into this debate because the Supreme Court decisions prior to Wards Cove clearly articulate the scope of business necessity, and we follow those decisions as required by the 1991 Act. … The plaintiffs fail to establish a genuine dispute of material fact sufficient to survive summary judgment.

Eugene C. Campbell v. United States

307 F.2d 597 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 28, 1962

There the Court held: “Clearly the experts failed to give proper weight to his fitness for naval air service or to the work he performed, and misinterpreted ‘total permanent disability’ as used in the policy and statute authorizing … You, as the triers of the facts, must decide whether the government has established beyond a reasonable doubt, as that term has been defined to you, that the defendant has no mental disease or mental defect.

Foodservice and Lodging Institute, Inc. v. William J. Usery, Secretary of Labor, U.S. Department of Labor

549 F.2d 829 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 16, 1977

qualifying as a restaurant. … off the premises could still qualify as a restaurant.