Case law

Boyd Leedom, as Chairman and Members of National Labor Relations Board v. International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, Local Union No. 108, Afl-Cio, General Cable Corporation v. Boyd Stewart Leedom, Individually and as Chairman and Members of and Constituting National Labor Relations Board

278 F.2d 237 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 24, 1960

I. 4 We think the District Court was clearly correct in dismissing the Company's suit on the ground that an adequate statutory review procedure is available. 1 By refusing to bargain with any newly elected representatives … To establish an in futuro rule for all pending cases would create an administrative monstrosity.

John D. Copanos and Sons, Inc. And Kanasco, Ltd. v. Food and Drug Administration and Frank E. Young, M.D., ph.d., Commissioner of Food and Drugs

854 F.2d 510 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 19, 1988

The complaint and the accompanying exhibits described in detail the CGMP deficiencies revealed in the August-October inspection, noting, in particular, that “[t]here is not an adequate number of qualified personnel to perform … In future cases, however, the agency would be well advised to adopt a format for its notice that would clearly reveal (1) each CGMP violation that forms a basis for the withdrawal action, the specific regulation governing

Public Citizen v. Dr. Frank Young, Commissioner, Food and Drug Administration, Cosmetic, Toiletry and Fragrance Association, Intervenor. Public Citizen v. Department of Health & Human Services

831 F.2d 1108 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 23, 1987

Although the clauses have almost identical wording, the context is clearly different. … If this were established, then a no-effect level in rats might be established. Id.; see also 50 Fed.Reg. at 35,786-87.

Petties, Nikita S. v. DC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 6, 2000

While we are not at all sure that Forgay has continuing vitality apart from the collateral order doctrine, it is obvious in any event that plaintiffs' showing falls short of the mark this court has established. … That clearly is not the law of this court, much less of this case.

UnitedHealthcare Ins. Co. v. Azar

330 F. Supp. 3d 173 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 7, 2018

The Court finds that the 2014 Overpayment Rule establishes a system where "actuarial equivalence" cannot be achieved. B. … In the preamble to the 2014 Overpayment Rule, CMS explained that such reasonable diligence "at a minimum ... would include proactive compliance activities conducted in good faith by qualified individuals to monitor for the

Bradford National Clearing Corporation and Bradford Securities Processing Services, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, New York Stock Exchange, Inc., National Securities Clearing Corporation, Intervenors. Bradford National Clearing Corporation and Bradford Securities Processing Services, Inc. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, National Securities Clearing Corporation, Intervenor

590 F.2d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 19, 1978

Although in announcing these hearings, the Commission clearly broached the possibility of modification of Order I in light of the actual operation thereof, it made clear that it ordered the hearings not because it has lost … Nonetheless, it is apparent to us that the Commission, not only in Order I itself, but also in the public notices preceding it, clearly acknowledged the relevance to its registration decision of the cost to it of overseeing

Williams v. Steuart Motor Co.

494 F.2d 1074 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 28, 1974

Richard Vanderhoof was called by plaintiff and qualified as an expert automotive mechanic. … Clearly Steuart’s breach of warranty to plaintiff rested on Ford’s breach of warranty to Steuart.

In re Grand Jury Investigation

315 F. Supp. 3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 31, 2018

The Special Counsel's authority is not clearly greater than the Independent Counsel's, and arguably is lesser. … Lucia suggested that one holding a "temporary" position may not qualify as an officer at all, but only as an employee. Id.

Vermont Information Processing, Inc. v. NLRB

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 26, 2026

Evidence qualifies as “substantial” when “a reasonable mind might accept [it] as adequate to support a conclusion.” McLamb v. NLRB, 141 F.4th 1308, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2025) (cleaned up). … First, VIP claims that it did not fire Bendel for salary sharing, but rather because he used the “spreadsheet to disrupt the roll-out of the restructuring plan and to immunize himself against possible termination.”

Adamski v. McHugh

304 F. Supp. 3d 227 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 31, 2015

Circuit has long recognized that "[u]nlike an ordinary statute of limitations, § 2401(a) is a jurisdictional condition attached to the government's waiver of sovereign immunity," Spannaus v. … But where Congress has not clearly required exhaustion, sound judicial discretion governs." (citations omitted)).

Arthur Shelton v. United States Board of Parole, Harvey Marion Boswell v. United States Board of Parole, Donald L. Smith v. .Hugh Rivers, Chairman, District of Columbia Board of Parole, Elbert Henry White v. United States Board of Parole, John L. Jacobs v. District of Columbia Board of Parole, George L. Williams v. Paul H. Preston, Superintendent, District of Columbia Jail

388 F.2d 567 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 1967

Yet, we are not prepared to hold that failure to afford a procedure whereby the violator may seek a favorable disposition, or an outright refusal to consider proffered evidence in mitigation, is immune from judicial overview … The grounds for this claim are not clearly reflected in the record, and we do not decide whether or under what circumstances a violator might claim sufficient prejudice from a delayed dispositional hearing to warrant relief

United States v. Lonnell Tucker

12 F.4th 804 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 3, 2021

The evidence established that Samuels assisted Fields in this endeavor. … In sum, the district court did not clearly err in calculating the drug quantity attributable to Tucker.

National Cable Television Ass'n v. Federal Communications Commission

33 F.3d 66 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 26, 1994

Title III establishes the federal regulatory scheme for broadcasting. The Act, however, “fences off from FCC reach or regulation intrastate matters,” Louisiana Public Service Comm’n v. … This argument fails because the qualification “if any” in the statutory definition of “cable service” clearly implies that the subscriber interaction to which the NCTA refers is not a necessary component of cable service.

Ticor Title Insurance Company v. Federal Trade Commission

814 F.2d 731 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 24, 1987

Though that language itself leaves critical issues open, the precedents resolve them clearly enough for this case. … First, a long line of decisions establishes that the expense of an administrative proceeding — the sole burden that appellants allege here — does not qualify as the imposition of a burden or denial of a right.

Shaffer v. United States

24 App. D.C. 417 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 13, 1904

We are clearly of opinion that this evidence of tbe witness was admissible, and that there was no error in tbe ruling of tbe court in respect thereto. 6. … rationality of discourse, or tbe opposite of it, or tbe like; therefore in such an inquiry it is appropriate to bear opinions upon tbe point from those whose personal observation of tbe facts of tbe matter has been such as to qualify

Merit Motors, Inc. v. Chrysler Corporation

569 F.2d 666 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 20, 1977

Professor Staelin qualified this statement, noting that he “would not want to say that that is because of the subsidy program.” Id. … The position that an expert’s opinion that lacks any credible support creates an issue of “fact” is clearly untenable. 28 . Brief for appellants at 38. 29 . See, e. g..

Sitka Sound Seafoods, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

206 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 28, 2000

Seasonal production workers, those hired to fill temporary processing demands during the busy periods, do not qualify for the seniority list. … Board has not (except in "rare instances," which the Company attempts to distinguish), applied such a formula to "seasonal" workers, by which the Company means "full-time regular employees who are utilized during clearly

Allied Industrial Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

476 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 12, 1973

Otherwise the protected activity would lose some of its immunity, since the example of employees who are discharged on false charges would or might have a deterrent effect on other employees. 379 U.S. at 23 , 85 S.Ct. at … We affirm for reasons clearly set out in our recent decision of Retail Store Union v. NLRB, 466 F.2d 380, 385 (D.C.Cir. 1972).

Cone, George E. v. Caldera, Louis

223 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 12, 2000

An officer seeking a correction must prove "clearly and convincingly" that the "presumption of regularity" in the preparation of administra- tive records should not apply, and that "[a]ction is warranted to correct a material … at 34-35, as do we.11 Yet, as already noted, there is no evidence that Cone qualifies as one of the Army's top 1%.

In Re: Polar Bear Endangered Species

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2013

Several plaintiffs argued that the listing was unwarranted because the agency failed to establish a foreseeable risk of extinction. … The Services do not believe that Congress intended to establish such a strict standard for justifications to State agencies.