Case law

Guedes v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms

920 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 1, 2019

The Congress must, for instance, “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.” Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. … If the focus is—as it must be—on the trigger, a bump stock does not qualify as a “machinegun.”

Nathaniel B. Henderson v. United States

360 F.2d 514 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 15, 1966

It sought to discharge its burden of establishing sanity beyond a reasonable doubt 6 by a vigorous cross-examination designed to show that Dr. Dabney’s investigative efforts were inadequate. … But I reluctantly accede to his wish to abandon his rights since this may well be in his best interest. 25 However, we should understand that his conviction may not be immune from collateral attack if he should change his

Eleon Allen, Individually and for Others Similarly Situated v. Margaret Heckler

780 F.2d 64 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 31, 1985

II. 9 There is clearly tension, if not conflict, between the two well-meaning attempts to assist the handicapped at issue in this case. The subsection (h) excepted service program was created by St. … Morris, 752 F.2d 1271 (8th Cir.1985). 11 Given this statutory command, subsection (h) clearly falls short of the Act's affirmative action requirement.

American Federation of Government Employees v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

712 F.2d 640 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 1983

A resolution imposed on the parties by the Federal Service Impasses Panel, the Union maintains, cannot qualify as an “agreement” under the Act. … The Act securely establishes that all “conditions of employment” are presumed to be mandatory subjects of bargaining, and does not clearly indicate that grievance procedure scope is to be treated otherwise.

Nicholson v. Interstate Commerce Commission

711 F.2d 364 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1983

The project considered by the Court in Southern Pacific is clearly distinguishable from the Pointe Coupee Classification Yard because, as the Commission found, “the proposed [classification] yard is not a line of railroad … It does not involve any change in or extension of its mainline track and it qualifies as “switching” tracks that are specifically excluded by section 10907(b)(1) from the authority of the Commission under section 10901(a)

United States v. Laureys

653 F.3d 27 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 19, 2011

More to the point, the errors of other courts do not immunize the district court’s jury instruction on plain error review. … No. 104-104, § 508 , 110 Stat. 56 , 137 (adding subsection (b) to § 2422 and establishing a maximum imprisonment term of ten years); Protection of Children from Sexual Predators Act of 1998, Pub.L.

Joe Fleming v. AGRI

987 F.3d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 16, 2021

Among petitioners’ arguments, they contended that the presiding ALJ qualified as an “Officer[] of the United States” for purposes of the Constitution’s Appointments Clause, U.S. Const. art. … If section 1997e(a) admits of no exception (other than the textual qualifier that remedies must be “available”), then section 6912(e) too admits of no exception.

Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. v. Babbitt

87 F.3d 1338 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 2, 1996

(“APA”), establishes a strong presumption in favor of reviewability of agency action. Ramah at 3 (citing 5 U.S.C. § 702 ; Abbott Laboratories v. … Thus, he argues, the policy qualifies as a “general statement of policy,” which falls outside the scope of both § 450k and the APA’s notice and comment procedures. 15 This argument, however, hinges on the unreviewability

Biloxi Regional Medical Center v. Otis R. Bowen, Secretary, Dept. Of H.H.S

835 F.2d 345 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 18, 1987

Methodist agreed to affiliate with the Center and to lend its cooperation and expertise in establishing the facility as a regional medical center. … A The Medicare program established by Title XVIII of the Social Security Act provides federally funded health insurance for the aged and disabled.

Canning v. National Labor Relations Board

705 F.3d 490 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 25, 2013

However, the Board’s view of “the established constitutional balance” is neither so well established nor so clear as the Board seems to think. … It is well established that “inconsistency [within the Constitution] is to be implied only where the context clearly requires it.” Nat’l Mut. Ins. Co. v.

Redd, Trayon v. Summers, Lawrence H.

232 F.3d 933 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 1, 2000

But Redd, even if not an employee of the Bureau, clearly enjoyed protection against employment dis- crimination by Aspen, which was indisputably her employer. … Banks's brief and chaperoned intervention into Redd's routine does not qualify as "control[ling] the 'means and manner' " of her performance.

Kusuma Nio v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

314 F. Supp. 3d 238 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 16, 2018

Accordingly, USCIS has established that Mr. … Therefore, the balance clearly favors nondisclosure.

U.S. Dept. of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons Federal Correctional Complex Coleman v. FLRA

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 17, 2017

Because the collective bargaining agreement “had established seniority as the sole criterion upon which employees would qualify for  16 leave,” the Authority deemed the proposed leave-swapping … Nevertheless, consolidated relief rosters are clearly within the scope of the assignment procedures covered by Article 18.

Grumman Ohio Corporation v. Elizabeth Hansford Dole, Secretary U.S. Department of Transportation

776 F.2d 338 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 1985

Under this standard, it is plain that the White Book, as well as the UMTA regulation requiring grant recipients to use White Book specifications in federally subsidized ADB purchases, qualifies as a binding regulation. … The Urban Mass Transportation Act clearly delegates legislative rulemaking authority to the Secretary of Transportation, which he explicitly invoked both in promulgating the regulation requiring the use of certain uniform

Natl Wldlf Fed v. EPA

237 F.3d 670 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 2001

Disagreeing, NWF argues that the "resides or transacts business" clause in section 509(b)(1) is a venue provision, that venue in the Ninth Circuit was properly established, and that Industry petitioners' standing and … Thus, like the provision in Texas Municipal, it clearly directs petitioners where to file.

Algonquin Lng, Inc. And Algonquin Gas Transmission Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

570 F.2d 1043 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 26, 1978

4 or § 5, except under such circumstances as may be exempt by regulation under § 7(c). 5 Yet the Commission has not explained how CATCO authorizes its conditioning of the certificate here, where the circumstances are so clearly … [A] certificate shall be issued to any qualified applicant therefor, ... if it is found . . that the proposed service . . . is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity; otherwise such

Clark v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

782 F.3d 701 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 7, 2015

The decision whether to file a complaint is clearly prosecutorial, whereas once a hearing begins on an unfair labor practice complaint, the process becomes adjudicative. Id. at 125. … Because this power springs from the Authority, it still qualifies as a “final order of the Authority” subject to our review.

States Marine Lines, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Commission

376 F.2d 230 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 1967

Moreover, Congress quite clearly has not sanctioned unfair regulation. … However, the cases establishing that proposition also assume that the thwarted appellant has been accorded one fair hearing already, e. g., Ohio ex rel. Bryant v.

Amobi v. Brown

317 F. Supp. 3d 29 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 19, 2018

As a general matter, Plaintiffs here have failed to indicate clearly the purposes for which they seek to offer Inmate Brown and Major White's prior testimony, and they have also not uniformly pointed to particular hearsay … To the extent that Plaintiffs wish to identify specific statements in the testimony that qualify as non-hearsay or a hearsay exception, they are free to do so. 3.

Natl Assn Mftrs v. DOL

159 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 3, 1998

The membership dues argument is particularly inapt in this case; membership dues clearly have not financed this litigation because NAM's attorneys have not charged NAM for their work. … NAM does not qualify as indigent. Nor, contends the government, can this case be classified as "public interest" litigation.