Case law

Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

826 F.2d 1074 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 11, 1987

For another thing, the Commission's ruling in that solitary proceeding can scarcely be viewed as "well established." … Merwin clearly qualifies as a case of first impression under the Retail, Wholesale analysis, which, the dissent acknowledges, is the "seminal case fixing the law of the circuit for retroactive application of agency adjudications

Gilardi v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

733 F.3d 1208 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 2013

The Framers of the Constitution clearly embraced the philosophical insight that government coercion of moral agency is odious. … Jaycees , the government’s proposed solution clearly impinges on other core prerogatives. B Let us assume, however, the government has a compelling interest.

Milk Train Inc v. Veneman, Ann M.

310 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 26, 2002

memorandum prepared for the Secretary in connection with the 1998 program described five options for allocating the moneys, each containing a listing of the pros and cons of each option. *752 Choosing between those options clearly … For those who had failed to participate in the 1998 program, they could apply, provided they had production in the fourth quarter of 1998, with the basis for establishing payment amounts being the higher of 1997 or 1998 production

United States v. Chad Pyles

862 F.3d 82 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 7, 2017

There, a defendant had “clearly raised sentencing entrapment” as a reason for leniency. 824 F.3d at 1125 . … But even apart from the failure to respond to defense counsel’s contentions, the district court’s discussion at sentencing qualifies as reasonable (if at all) only by the skin of its teeth.

Aracely v. Nielsen

319 F. Supp. 3d 110 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 3, 2018

As the Supreme Court established in Bennett v. … Opp'n at 22 Regardless, the Court will not interpret Plaintiffs' action to seek relief that it does not clearly seek. Cf. Caterpillar Inc. v.

United States v. Gary Wyche

741 F.3d 1284 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 31, 2014

Because the record reflects that the 2012 district court’s calculation of 8.4 kilograms was not clearly erroneous, a quantity finding greater than 840 grams of cocaine base is not clearly erroneous either. … Smith qualifies for a sentence reduction only if his new base offense level is 32.

Global Van Lines, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

804 F.2d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 12, 1986

scope of a contract carrier’s hauling authority, a matter which is not explored when the application for contract-carrier authority is under consideration. 38 The Commission also notes that the Motor Carrier Act of 1980 established … To qualify for judicial deference, however, the agency’s interpretation must not be inconsistent with a clearly-appearing congressional purpose. See Morton v.

Make The Road New York v. Kristi Noem

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 22, 2025

Cir. 2012).  18 To establish a qualifying “practical effect,” the Department must show that the order “might have a serious, perhaps irreparable consequence” and “can be effectually challenged … Stays and vacatur are well-established remedies for unconstitutional and unlawful agency action.

Democratic Senatorial Campaign Committee v. Federal Election Commission, National Republican Senatorial Committee, Intervenor

660 F.2d 773 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 9, 1980

Section 441a(d)(3) not only designates spending limits with mathematical rigor; it also confers authority to reach those limits on two named committees, both clearly identified *779 by statutory definitions. … Nor do we understand either the FEC or the NRSC to contend that the NRSC qualifies as a “subordinate committee of a State committee,” the third kind of committee to which Section 441a(d)(3) refers.

Duquesne University v. NLRB

947 F.3d 824 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 28, 2020

As an initial matter, the adjuncts here are clearly faculty members. … EEOC, 565 U.S. 171 (2012), to decide the related question of which teachers qualify for a “ministerial exception” to employment discrimination laws.

William Sanjour v. Environmental Protection Agency

984 F.2d 434 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 29, 1993

Its reason clearly was safety. Id. at 1229-30 . … Good-faith compliance with such advisory opinions immunizes the employee from civil or disciplinary action by the OGE. 5 C.F.R. § 2636.103 (c). .

Wright v. Herman

230 F.R.D. 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 19, 2005

Motions to dismiss and for summary judgment do not qualify as responsive pleadings for the purposes of Rule 15. James v. Hur-son Assocs., 229 F.3d at 283 ; Bowden v. … While these facts establish a clear interest of the District of Columbia in having its substantive law applied, Virginia also has an interest in seeing its own substantive law applied because CRA Urban, LLC was established

Collazo v. United States

196 F.2d 573 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 1952

Eminent and able counsel for appellant state their contention clearly and accurately. They deny that their client purposed to kill and thus put in issue his purpose (intent) to kill. … But their original appointment was “until their successors are appointed and qualified” 16 Therefore they were validly acting as “holdovers” under their first appointment. 17 Furthermore, there was no specific statutory reference

Towns of Alexandria v. Federal Power Commission

555 F.2d 1020 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 15, 1977

The Otter Tail filing amounts to a new rate for a new type of service and should so qualify pursuant to Section 205 of the Federal Power Act 19 and Part 35.12 20 of the Regulations issued thereunder. 21 The Commission thus … for Elbow Lake did not preclude otherwise appropriate relief on its rate-discrimination allegation, for “a rate schedule, though previously accepted by the Commission for filing, is not unalterable when corrections are clearly

Peter Kuretski v. Commissioner of IRS

755 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 2014

The Kuretskis contend that they “clearly had reasonable cause” for their failure to pay their taxes on time, thus entitling them to penalty relief under § 6651(a)(2). Pet’rs’ Br. 49. … The proposed levy on the Kuretskis’ home undoubtedly qualifies as an “injury in fact” that is fairly traceable to the IRS, but the IRS argues that the Kuretskis fail to meet the redressability requirement.

Afro-American Publishing Co., Inc. v. Eli Jaffe, T/a Douglas Pharmacy

366 F.2d 649 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 23, 1966

Woodworth, supra, the propriety of punitive damages was drawn into question, but was considered too established to overturn. … U.S.App.D.C. 156, 158 , 194 F.2d 160, 161 , 30 A.L.R.2d 772 , cert. denied, 344 U.S. 821 , 73 S.Ct. 18 , 97 L.Ed. 639 (1952), which held that a credit agency could provide information to a subscriber, without forfeiting its qualified

National Treasury Employees Union v. Constance Horner, Director, Office of Personnel Management, National Treasury Employees Union v. Constance Horner, Director, Office of Personnel Management

854 F.2d 490 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 19, 1988

Testan, 424 U.S. 392 , 96 S.Ct. 948 , 47 L.Ed.2d 114 (1976), they were "clearly entitled to the declaratory and injunctive relief they seek." … Id. 27 These factors are clearly insufficient in this case to overcome the presumption in favor of reviewability.

Conservation Law Found. v. Ross

374 F. Supp. 3d 77 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 15, 2019

For if it is not, then the Service clearly considered the impact of significantly expanding habitat protection. … Any reasonable range of alternatives therefore must clearly include differing levels of EFH protection.

Moore v. Carson

322 F. Supp. 3d 163 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

According to Moore, HUD hired him as a PMF and then pushed him into a lower-paying job for which he was less qualified because of his race, gender, and age. See Am. Compl. [ECF No. 12] ¶¶ 61, 66, 126(a). … He therefore has not met his burden to establish the existence of a hostile work environment based on his age.

Wallace Russell Childs, Jr. v. United States Board of Parole, James Allen v. United States Board of Parole, Willie C. Cochran v. United States Board of Parole, James E. Eaton v. United States of America, John T. Sweeney v. United States Board of Parole, William Hewlett v. United States Board of Parole, Nicholas Potere v. United States Board of Parole

511 F.2d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 1974

One could not easily find a context in which these conditions of justiciability more clearly appear. 23 In United States ex rel. Johnson v. Chairman, N.Y.St. … Deming, 57 App.D.C. 223 , 19 F.2d 697, 698 (1927), the court stated, The purpose of mandamus is not to establish a legal right but to enforce one already established; hence the legal right of relator to the performance of