Case law

Petworth Holdings, LLC v. Bowser

308 F. Supp. 3d 347 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 20, 2018

Even if this subsection controlled, instead of (b) quoted above, Plaintiffs still qualify as "owners" under the Code. … While Plaintiffs have clearly been adversely affected by the Act, they have not alleged any quantifiable economic harm.

William L. Greene v. Neil H. McElroy Secretary of Defense

254 F.2d 944 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 1958

The new directive, inter alia, established revised procedures for screening industrial personnel, and the Board set up thereunder was given authority to review prior decisions of regional boards “on the grounds of newly discovered … But, in our view, confrontation with one’s accusers is clearly not required in circumstances like the present.

Yam Sang Kwai v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

411 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 17, 1969

Here petitioner was the best qualified person to know when he re-entered the United States and what his prior history before the Service had been. … The tainted evidence in that case was relied on largely in establishing the first ground for deportation.

NSTAR Electric & Gas Corp. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

481 F.3d 794 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 9, 2007

Our review of the Commission’s waiver rulings is “quite limited,” as “Congress, through § 205, has clearly delegated waiver discretion to the Commission and not to the courts.” City of Girard, Kan. v. … Nor, of course, do we mean to suggest that only prices in line with historic accounting costs would qualify as just and reasonable.

Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America, Afl-Cio, Air Line Pilots Association, International. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America, Afl-Cio. Appeal of Air Line Pilots Association, International. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Transport Workers Union of America, Afl-Cio and Air Line Pilots Association, International

606 F.2d 1350 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 9, 1979

The court, however, qualified its conclusions regarding the plaintiff's right of contribution: 12 At this time, the Court holds only that there is a federal common law right to contribution for monetary liability imposed … The employees are clearly the class especially intended to be protected under the Equal Pay Act. 26 The Airlines' claim, however, fails to satisfy the third prong of the Cort test consistency with the legislative scheme.

Hobart N. Crocker, Jr. v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc., Hobart N. Crocker, Jr. v. Piedmont Aviation, Inc.

49 F.3d 735 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 19, 1995

The ADEA’s limitations period does not qualify, In short, we find no obvious federal statutory-analog to the EPP cause of action and only a moderate federal policy interest in uniformity that would be frustrated by' borrowing … Whatever restitution may encompass, however, we clearly may not collapse it into the broader notion of “compensation.” Cf. Laycock, supra, at 1282-83.

Gray Panthers v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services

652 F.2d 146 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 18, 1981

Congress clearly meant to eliminate the right to a “full fair hearing.” See text at note 13 supra (Senate Finance Committee report). … Medicare pays 100% of the charges in Column 4 for radiology and pathology services from physician while you are a bed patient in a qualified hospital. 5.

In Re: Bruce Lindsey

148 F.3d 1100 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 27, 1998

Sending this case back for still another round of grand jury testimony, assertions of privileges and immunities, a district court judgment, and then another appeal would be inconsistent with the Supreme Court's request and … See 18 U.S.C.  3282 (establishing five-year statute of limitations for non-capital federal crimes).

National Surety Co. v. Anacostia Finance Corp.

26 F.2d 985 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 1928

After the Arizona charter was procured, it was found that the bank could not qualify to do business under the laws of the District of Columbia. … The rule in such cases is clearly stated in Pennsylvania Railway Co. v. Keokuk Bridge Co., 131 U. S. 371 , 9 S. Ct. 770 , 33 L.

Adele Halkin v. Richard Helms, Department of State Adele Halkin v. Richard Helms, Department of State, Harold Brown, Secretary, Department of Defense in His Official Capacity

598 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 16, 1979

Because I feel that the panel has clearly misconceived the nature of the so-called "state secrets privilege" and the standard of review applicable to the assertion of that privilege, I voted to rehear this case En banc. 55 … respect for the executive's scruples against disclosure and at the same time his duties require him constantly to appraise private interests and to reconcile them with conflicting public policies; he may thus seem better qualified

Tippitt v. Wood

140 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 7, 1944

In doing so it establishes the novel precedent that a petition for mandamus can be used as a substitute for the traditional writ of habeas corpus. … This assumption of jurisdiction is clearly erroneous.

Edelman v. Sec. & Exch. Comm'n

356 F. Supp. 3d 97 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 12, 2019

Eligibility As relevant here, Edelman may establish that he "has substantially prevailed" by showing that he "obtained relief through either ... a judicial order... … Thus, there is clearly a public benefit from Edelman's FOIA litigation. Dkt. 49 at 4-5.

Bp West Coast Products, LLC v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Sfpp, L.P., Intervenors

374 F.3d 1263 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 2004

These “grandfathered” rates are categorically immune from challenge in a complaint proceeding under Section 13 of the Interstate Commerce Act (“ICA”), 49 U.S.C. app. § 13(1) (1988) (repealed), 1 except when: (1) evidence … established.

United States v. Carlton E. Bryant, United States of America v. William E. Turner

439 F.2d 642 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 29, 1971

He constantly qualified his statements with “possibly” or “probably” or simply settled for “I don’t know.” He was clear on only a few facts. … The disclosure duty it establishes is not strictly mandatory; rather, discretion is left with the trial judge.

Illinois National Guard v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, National Federation of Federal Employees, Intervenor. Wyoming Air National Guard and Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, California National Guard and Department of Defense v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

854 F.2d 1396 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 6, 1988

to establish their work schedules. … Clearly, the Technician Act does not require him unilaterally to prescribe work schedules.

Smithkline Corporation v. Food And Drug Administration

587 F.2d 1107 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 1978

Although this may establish that Dexamyl is not identical to the drugs named in the February 12, 1973 notice, it in no way establishes that SKF's products are not similar or related to the named combinations. … Nor will a merely pro forma affidavit suffice to establish the existence of such an issue if, for example, FDA evidence establishes peradventure that the affidavit is legally irrelevant or manifestly infirm

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, and William K. Reilly, Administrator, American Iron and Steel Institute, Rubicon Inc., E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc., Texstor, Institute for Chemical Waste Management, American Petroleum Institute, Intervenors. E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, and William K. Reilly, Administrator, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Intervenor. Rubicon Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Intervenor. Chemical Manufacturers Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, and William K. Reilly, Administrator, Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., Intervenor. Hazardous Waste Treatment Council v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Chemical Manufacturers Association, Institute of Chemical Waste Management, Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, E.I. Du Pont De Nemours & Company, Inc., Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., American Iron and Steel Institute, Intervenors

907 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 5, 1990

Thus the procedural issue--must EPA have regulations in place, which it has established, in a rulemaking, as at least contingently applicable to salt domes, before it issues any permits?--is clearly ripe. Cf. … In this case, Congress has used well-established terms of art to express its meaning with great precision.

D. C. Transit System, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, and District of Columbia Council, Intervenors

466 F.2d 394 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 18, 1972

we find nothing that denies the Company any *422 rights possessed under the Federal Constitution.” 212 That holding, in our view, solidly supports the thesis that the caliber of a utility’s service may constitutionally qualify … The Constitution does not guarantee a public utility immunity from loss occasioned by uneconomic and inefficient management decisions, and we do not believe that it bars a regulatory agency on a record such as this from taking

Dkt Memorial Fund Ltd. v. Agency for International Development, Dkt Memorial Fund Ltd. v. Agency for International Development

887 F.2d 275 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 10, 1989

Agency for Int’l Dev., 838 F.2d 649, 654 (2d Cir.1988), not that they be immunized from any conditions on their grants. … So far as the record establishes, neither of these cases has ever happened yet.

In Re Barnes

689 F.2d 193 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 3, 1982

Accordingly, the court, based on the facts presented, sees no reason for disturbing the well-established meaning of "principal place of business." 55 In re Abel Montano at 2-3 (citations omitted). … where Congress uses a term like "principal place of business" with a relatively fixed historical meaning, we cannot now introduce a new interpretation. 63 We must similarly reject Montano's argument that his future earnings qualify