Case law

United States v. Burch, Larry D.

156 F.3d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 9, 1998

Here, the trial judge was clearly aware of the potential danger for "jury misuse of the evidence," United States v. Brown, 490 F.2d 758, 764 (D.C. … Code are neither superceded nor qualified by the more general provisions contained in Title 23.

Wilton E. Hall and Greenville, Television Company v. Federal Communications Commission, Spartan Radiocasting Company, Intervenor

237 F.2d 567 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 22, 1956

Clearly, then, the inquiry cannot be limited to the facts alleged in the protest where the Commission has reason to believe, either from the protest or its own files, that a full evidentiary hearing may develop other relevant … The engineering exhibits, prepared and testified to by a recognized and qualified radio and television engineer, disclose that the number of persons thus deprived of service would be about 228,000, according to “an analysis

Latif v. Obama

677 F.3d 1175 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 14, 2011

The district court is uniquely qualified to determine the credibility of hearsay, and the *238 presumption of regularity does not detract from that role. … Indeed, the Government noted those criminal cases were “clearly distinguishable.” Id. at 45. We agreed.

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.

People for the Ethical Treatment v. National Institutes of Health

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 14, 2014

The agency bears the burden of establishing that an exemption applies. Reporters Comm., 489 U.S. at 755. … Id.; see also Nation Magazine, 71 F.3d at 894- 95 (“[T]he mere fact that records pertain to an individual’s activities does not necessarily qualify them for exemption.

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.

United States Sugar Corp. v. Environmental Protection Agency

830 F.3d 579 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 29, 2016

The latter are sources that do not emit enough HAPs to qualify as “major.” Id. § 7412(a)(2). … Because they combust solid waste, cyclonic burn barrels clearly fall within the statutory definition of “solid waste incineration unit” and, as established above, the EPA had a nondiscretionary statutory duty to establish

Heller v. District of Columbia

670 F.3d 1244 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 2011

. * Specifically, the applicant must: • Have vision qualifying one for a driver’s license. § 7-2502.03(a)(ll). • Demonstrate knowledge of the District’s laws pertaining to firearms “and, in particular, the safe and responsible … Hence we conclude the grant of authority in the HRA comprises the subject of firearms and supersedes the qualified grant to the District in the 1906 Act.

American Civil Liberties Union v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Tele-Communications, Inc., Intervenors. Cable Television Access Coalition, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Tele-Communications, Inc., Intervenors. National League of Cities v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Tele-Communications, Inc., Intervenors. National Federation of Local Cable Programmers v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Tele-Communications, Inc., Intervenors. City of New York v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Tele-Communications, Inc., Intervenors. Guam Cable Tv v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Tele-Communications, Inc., Intervenors. County of Contra Costa, California v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Tele-Communications, Inc., Intervenors. Yakima Valley Cablevision, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Va, Cities of Sunnyside and Grandview, Wash. And City of Southfield, Michigan, National Cable Television Association, Inc., Centel Corporation, Intervenors. Connecticut Cable Television Association, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, National Cable Television Association, Inc., Centel Corporation, Intervenors

823 F.2d 1554 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 1987

Such a result, the FCC argues, is "clearly not intended by the statute." … The FCC has established waiver procedures, however, by which franchising authorities may demonstrate that signals listed as significantly viewed should no longer qualify for that status.

Dolores J. Copeland, Individually and on Behalf of the Class of All Others Similarly Situated v. F. Ray Marshall, Secretary of Labor

641 F.2d 880 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 2, 1980

Thus, we ask only that the district court judges exercise their discretion as conscientiously as possible, and state their reasons as clearly as possible. 24 2. … The record in this case clearly demonstrates that the [government] changed its policies with great reluctance and only under the pressure of the lawsuit.. ..

In Re: Neil S. Kagan, Esquire

351 F.3d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 30, 2003

He needed this information in connection with establishing his client’s Article III standing (Tr. 46). 3 3. … Faced with no clearly controlling ethical rule and with case law and ethics opinions that were at best analogous to the facts of this case, Mr.

Federal Labor Relations Authority v. U.S. Department Of The Treasury

884 F.2d 1446 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 13, 1989

Had the Supreme Court envisioned this case, would it have qualified Reporters Committee's statement of the public interest relevant under the FOIA? … First, to fall within exemption 6, the invasion of privacy must be "clearly" unwarranted; the adverb "clearly" is omitted from exemption 7(C).

Atlantic Tele-Network, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission and United States of America, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Intervenor

59 F.3d 1384 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 25, 1995

ATN argued that because it was not an established carrier, it would not qualify for any of the return traffic from Guyana under a proportionate return provision and that only those domestic carriers with significant market … With an 80 percent ownership interest in GT & T, ATN is clearly a dominant carrier, see id. at 4779 & n. 21; In re Regulation of Int’l Common Carrier Services, 7 F.C.C.R. 7331, 7332 (1992) (carrier is dominant when it owns

Tradesmen International, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

275 F.3d 1137 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 2002

Although Oakes was qualified for HVAC positions, there were no such positions available through Tradesmen at that time. … Our analysis of whether Oakes's activity enjoys section 7's protections is guided by Supreme Court precedent, which clearly provides that the "mutual aid or protection" clause in section 7 includes em- ployees' efforts

Associated Gas Distributors v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

824 F.2d 981 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 1987

If so, then the obsolescence referred to is clearly far from universal. … Thus FERC is clearly barred from setting sub-NGPA ceilings on jurisdictional wellhead sales.

Chemical Waste Management, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

976 F.2d 2 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 25, 1992

thereunder to qualifying owners and operators of facilities that discharge into waters of the United States or POTWs. … "The traditional deference courts pay to agency interpretation is not to be applied to alter the clearly expressed intent of Congress.”

American Security & Trust Co. v. Equitable Life Insurance

461 F.2d 158 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 10, 1971

But § 35-535 is nothing more than a “legal list” of investments which life insurance companies are permitted to make and is clearly directed toward the protection of policyholders. … Since to have been a holder in due course Hartford would have had to have taken the note with “no notice of any infirmity in the instrument or defect in the title of the person negotiating it,” 34 Hartford could not have qualified

Sierra Club, a Nonprofit California Corporation v. The United States Department of Transportation the Federal Aviation Administration Elizabeth Hanford Dole, Individually and as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation J. Lynn Helms, Individually and as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration Frontier Airlines, Inc., a Nevada Corp. Jackson Hole Airport Board, an Agency Organized Under the Laws of the State of Wyoming, Sierra Club, a Nonprofit California Corporation v. The United States Department of Transportation the Federal Aviation Administration Elizabeth Hanford Dole, Individually and as Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation J. Lynn Helms, Individually and as Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration Western Airlines, Inc., a Delaware Corporation Jackson Hole Airport Board, an Agency Organized Under the Laws of the State of Wyoming

753 F.2d 120 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 25, 1985

It is clearly within the expertise and discretion of the agency to determine proper testing methods. We find no abuse of discretion in the choice of the cumulative noise level analysis methodology. … Here the respondents claim that the FAA orders qualified as "categorically excluded" and neither NEPA nor controlling agency orders required a further examination of the effects of the agency action.

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.

Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

684 F.2d 31 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 23, 1982

The CAB advances this view explicitly in neither its orders nor its brief in this court, but it was clearly expressed in the May 14 meeting: MS. … But then the Board turned around and, in the middle of the Alaska Service Investigation, granted Wien the exemption authority it had earlier denied, saying that “Wien was clearly the best qualified.” Id. at 344 .