Case law

James Abourezk v. Ronald Wilson Reagan, President of the United States City of New York v. George P. Shultz, Secretary of State Bruce Cronin v. George P. Shultz, Secretary of State

785 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 11, 1986

Liao, the self-appointed leader of a movement to establish an independent Formosa. The Department found that there was "a clear incompatibility between Mr. … A statement thus walled off from any effective challenge scarcely qualifies as a reason.

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).

United States v. Alfredo Leyva

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 26, 2019

In other words, that a defendant has read the indictment does not establish that he understood “the nature of the charge.” … Due deference review lies “somewhere between de novo and ‘clearly erroneous’” review. United States v. Cano-Flores, 796 F.3d 83, 90 (D.C.

Allied Industrial Workers, Afl-Cio Local Union No. 289 v. National Labor Relations Board, Cavalier Division of Seeburg Corporation and Cavalier Corporation, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. Cavalier Division of Seeburg Corporation and Cavalier Corporation, Cavalier Division of Seeburg Corporation and Cavalier Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

476 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 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)

In Re Aov Industries, Inc., Hubert R. Bruce, Appeal of Hawley Fuel Coalmart, Inc. And Hawley Fuel Coal, Inc.

792 F.2d 1140 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 1986

Because these transactions are immunized from reversal, the district court found that effective relief for the appellants is “no longer available.” Id. … Since then, however, the trial judge has entered a J.N.O.V. order, finding that Hawley had not established the existence of an enforceable contract. Hawley Fuel Coalmart v.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. United States

735 F.2d 1525 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 1984

However, since FHWA is expanding the area of operation fourfold, a limitation is necessary to ensure that the hours of service are not violated. * * * It should be clearly understood that once a driver exceeds that 12-hour … Under the new rules, however, a local driver whose tour of duty lasts 15 hours may still qualify for the exemption; the comparable assumption must therefore be that local drivers will spend at least five hours out of fifteen

Ohio v. United States Department of Interior

880 F.2d 432 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 14, 1989

The assessment process established by the Type B regulations has four phases. … Petitioners maintain that the “shall not be limited by” language clearly establishes restoration costs as a *119 “floor” measure of damages.

Union of Concerned Scientists v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission

735 F.2d 1437 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 25, 1984

The Act itself establishes a two step licensing procedure. An applicant for a nuclear power plant operating license must first obtain a construction permit. … Thus, we conclude that evaluation of emergency exercises is not a determination , resting solely on a test or inspection so as to qualify for a generic exemption from section 189(a)’s hearing requirement. 24 The NRC also

Monroe v. United States

234 F.2d 49 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 30, 1956

Except for the appellant Smith, however, no appellant reserved this point clearly on the record either before, during, or after trial. … All except Monroe and Prather escaped this danger by their acquittal of conspiracy; and, as we have already seen, in connection with the discussion of the alleged variance, the evidence so clearly established that Monroe

Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp

661 F.3d 1147 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 29, 2011

Although the district court focused on four of these factors and found they established that the project’s environmental impact would be “significant,” Sierra Club, 719 F. … Dodd’s expertise and experience, and the seeming logic of his analysis, as well as CCTC’s own acknowledgment of the snake’s vulnerability to fragmentation risk, we think his comment qualifies as the sort of “relevant and

Interpool Ltd. v. Federal Maritime Commission

663 F.2d 142 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 18, 1980

the carriage of cargo, to agree upon and establish tariffs, and to make rules and regulations for handling and carrying cargo.... … Many amendments are undoubtedly routine changes, clearly authorized by the underlying conference agreements, and are not likely to be opposed.

Charles E. Wagner, for Himself and Others Similarly Situated v. Reese H. Taylor, Jr., Chairman, Interstate Commerce Commission

836 F.2d 578 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 24, 1987

across employment status or job categories is a “specific presentation” identifying the questions of law or fact common to the class representative and the members of the class proposed. 69 The Court has identified two qualifying … Clearly, his presentation on this point has failed. C. Adequacy of Representation The District Court held that Wagner was unsuitable as a class representative in two respects.

The Lubrizol Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency

562 F.2d 807 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 12, 1977

Tests under subparagraph (A) shall be conducted in conformity with test procedures and protocols established by the Administrator. … EPA officials also potentially qualify as persons familiar with the “field” in question here.

Moore v. U.S. House of Representatives

733 F.2d 946 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 4, 1984

Bush, this court insisted that congressional complainants clearly allege a concrete injury in fact to a specific legal interest in order to invoke the jurisdiction of the court. 20 The injury alleged by appellants here is … We need not, therefore, inquire into the extent of constitutional immunity from suit afforded by the Speech or Debate Clause. See, Vander Jagt v.

L'Enfant Plaza Properties, Inc. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency Johannes U. Hoeber v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency

564 F.2d 515 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 18, 1977

The Act then established an administrative scheme for the necessary planning and implementation to reach this goal. Section 6, D.C. … The language of section 12 is virtually the same as that of section 11 of S.610, except that the class of persons with a right to object to proposed plan changes is qualified by the phrase “as it may affect.”

United States v. Sabri Yakou

428 F.3d 241 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 9, 2005

To qualify as a LPR upon seeking reentry into the United States, Yakou “must have acquired lawful permanent resident status in accordance with our laws, must have retained that status from the time he acquired it, and must … Haitian Centers Council, Inc., 509 U.S. 155, 176 , 113 S.Ct. 2549, 2561 , 125 L.Ed.2d 128 (1993), which is “clearly expressed,” ARAMCO, 499 U.S. at 248 , 111 S.Ct. 1227 ; see also United States v.

Shieldalloy Metallurgical Corp. v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

707 F.3d 371 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 19, 2013

Shieldalloy had argued that as its license application had already been years in processing, transfer to New Jersey would clearly interrupt the process. See Shiel-dalloy, 624 F.3d at 493 . … The document evinces a clear expectation that a licensee must compare unrestricted and restricted release in order to establish eligibility under § 20.1403(a).

Federal Trade Commission v. Weyerhaeuser Company

665 F.2d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 1, 1981

We therefore indicate in some detail why we disagree with the Commission’s view that the findings should be set aside as “clearly erroneous.” See Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a). … When Congress enacted Section 13(b) in 1973, the hold separate order was an established device in antitrust law enforcement.

City of Detroit v. Federal Power Commission

230 F.2d 810 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 15, 1955

We should not be understood to say that whenever the Commission does establish the necessary relationship between means and end, a prescribed rate increase will be lawful. … This statement of the different results of the two methods, however, should be Qualified insofar as it is said to reflect the findings of the Commission itself; for the Commission also said that if the comparison were strictly

Marita Rogers v. Alan Platt and Kathy Platt

814 F.2d 683 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 24, 1987

For the reasons discussed above, we think that is clearly so here. … A state presumably can decide, wholly for itself, whether or not it wishes to establish a state custody proceeding that has only intrastate effect.