Case law

Beethoven Com v. Librarian Cong

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 14, 2005

A “theoretical possibility,” however, is not sufficient to qualify as “capable of repetition.” Murphy v. Hunt, 455 U.S. 478, 482 (1982); accord Public Utilities Comm’n of Cal., 236 F.3d at 714. … The Librarian must establish “rates and terms that most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller.” 17 U.S.C. § 114(f)(2)(B).

General Electric Co. v. Environmental Protection Agency

360 F.3d 188 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 2, 2004

CERCLA establishes various penalties, including punitive damages, in the event of noncompliance with a UAO by a PRP. … Accordingly, we hold, in light of the qualified scope of the judicial review bar in § 113(h), that the district court erred in dismissing  12 GE’s amended complaint for lack of subject matter

United States v. Ernest Moore

703 F.3d 562 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 2012

The court may order restitution “to any victim of [a qualifying] offense.” 18 U.S.C. § 3663(a)(1)(A); see also 18 U.S.C. § 3663A(a)(1). … However, that section applies to establishing the amount of loss used for establishing a base offense level, not toward restitution for which the Guidelines includes interest and finance charges.

Golden Holiday Tours v. Civil Aeronautics Board

531 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 3, 1976

This becomes apparent upon a closer look at Petitioner’s day-to-day operations, and the pattern of behavior established by the Board. … new rule had it been in effect, and which may well have been in violation of the rule as it then existed. 28 *299 There is nothing in the Prospectus to indicate that acceptance in those cases was in any sense reluctant or qualified

Yankee Network, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

107 F.2d 212 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 14, 1939

While the Corn-mission was largely occupied, in its earlier years, with finding qualified licensees and controlling electrical interference, now a new problem has developed, which is just as important as electrical interference … Such a grant of power would' be so clearly unreasonable, so oppressive, and so partial as to make it untliinkable, without more, that the Congress ever intended to grant it. Yick Wo v.

In the Matter of the Application of Jason Leopold to Unseal Certain Electronic Surveillance Applications and Orders

964 F.3d 1121 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 7, 2020

Bus. of the Custer Battlefield Museum & Store, 658 F.3d 1188, 1193 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding that “[a]ffidavits in support of seizure or search warrants . . . clearly fall within the definition of judicial documents” (internal … We also note that, unlike the Pen Register Act but like Rule 6(e)(6), the Wiretap Act establishes its own standard for unsealing: “good cause.”  -17- test as the standard for unsealing.

Thomas v. District of Columbia

908 F. Supp. 2d 233 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 17, 2012

That case, as the R & R noted, lays out three elements that a petitioner must establish through competent evidence. … Although only two witnesses testified at the administrative hearing, it bears noting that one of the witnesses was a special education advocate, called by the plaintiff, who was qualified as “an expert on the development

Free Enterprise Fund v. Public Co. Accounting Oversight Board

537 F.3d 667 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 2008

Nor does the statute satisfy the conditions under which a for-cause officer can still qualify as inferior. … To qualify as inferi- or, an officer must be statutorily subject to direction and supervision in all significant activities.

United States v. Civil Aeronautics Board, American Airlines, Inc., and Northwest Airlines, Inc., Intervenors. United States of America v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Braniff Airways, Inc., and Northwest Airlines, Inc., Intervenors

510 F.2d 769 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 31, 1975

As we stated in EDR--249 (Economic Draft Regulation), the carriers brought to our attention in early 1973 specific errors made in establishing the fiscal 1973 rates in ER--786. … In this case, the Government was very clearly a party to the whole rate proceeding, the DOD submitting briefs and its objections at every step of the way.

Allied Aviation Service Comp. v. NLRB

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 18, 2017

An ALJ then heard an additional day of testimony and accepted post- hearing briefing on whether the Training Supervisors qualified as statutory supervisors. … But we need not decide whether Allied forfeited its bid for the NLRB to dismiss this case in  11 order that it might be reheard before the NMB because the record clearly supports the NLRB’s exercise

Fontem US, LLC v. FDA

82 F.4th 1207 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 29, 2023

while the agency issued preliminary guidance in 2019, that guidance did not crystallize into a final rule until 1 Last year, the Act was amended to make explicit that products “containing nicotine from any source” may qualify … “When an agency relies on multiple grounds for its decision, some of which are invalid, we may nonetheless sustain the decision as long as one is valid and the agency would clearly have acted on that ground even if the other

American Society for Testing and Materials v. Public.Resource.Org, Inc.

82 F.4th 1262 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 12, 2023

See, e.g., id. at 449 (“at least as a general matter, [Public Resource’s] attempt to freely distribute standards incorporated by reference into law qualified as a use that furthered the purposes of the fair use defense”); … Supp. 3d at 245, and the plaintiffs do not challenge this finding as clearly erroneous. Nor do they point to any instance where Public Resource intentionally posted a standard knowing that it had not been incorporated.

Kristensen v. McGrath Attorney General

179 F.2d 796 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 1949

Such a statutory declaration of finality, which has not precluded review by way of habeas corpus for a considerable number of years, can hardly qualify now as a bar to review under this statute. United States ex rel. … Clearly, at the time he registered and subsequently filed Form DSS 301, appellant *803 had been deprived of the volition necessary to residence because proceedings against him had been completed and he was awaiting the purely

Tax Analysts v. Internal Revenue Service

294 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 5, 2002

Such materials clearly satisfy the “law enforcement purposes” threshold of Exemption 7. The District Court’s holding to the contrary failed to *79 take adequate account of 1986 amendments to Exemption 7. … The tone of these TAs indicates that they “simply explain and apply established policy.” Coastal States, 617 F.2d at 869 .

Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Two Cases. Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, White & Case, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Peat, Marwick, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Roger O. Walther, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, James F. Joy, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Donald A. Fergusson and Robert A. Fergusson, Wachovia Bank and Trust Co., N. A. (As Trustee and Agent for Various Trust Accounts) v. National Student Marketing Corporation, Cortes W. Randell

650 F.2d 342 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 15, 1981

an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed." … The defendant then has the onus of establishing his good faith and lack of knowledge of the falsity.

Durham v. Seymour

6 App. D.C. 78 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 1, 1895

The burden is upon the complainant to establish the affirmative by proof that is clear and conclusive. Morgan v. Daniels, 153 U. S. 120 . … In a patentable combination of old elements, all the constituents must so enter into it as that each qualifies every other; to draw an illustration from another branch of the law, they must be joint tenants of the domain

American Optometric Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission

626 F.2d 896 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 6, 1980

State Bar of Arizona have established some measure of first amendment protection for commercial speech, they have not addressed many issues raised by this rule, such as the extent to which affirmative disclosure requirements … However, there was specific expert testimony that opticians are qualified to dispense contact lenses, see Staff Report at 278-80, and, in any event, we have no reason to dismiss the Staff Report’s conclusion that state laws

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

424 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 2, 1970

” — clearly reflected the Company’s hostility to the Union and the Union’s efforts to organize the employees. … The company did not ‘clearly demonstrate that factual issues exist which can only be resolved by an evidentiary hearing.’

Pearson v. Shalala

164 F.3d 650 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 1999

Friedman is thus not at odds with the relevant First Amendment principles established in Bates, which -in any event the Supreme Court has reaffirmed—post-Fried man —in R.M.J., Shapero, and Peel. … But the Supreme Court expressly disapproved of that aspect of Posadas in 44 Liquormart, 517 U.S. at 509-10 , 116 S.Ct. 1495 (plurality) (“Posadas clearly erred in concluding it was ‘up to the legislature’ to choose suppression

United States v. Perkins, Daniel J.

161 F.3d 66 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 24, 1998

The court clearly prefaced its remarks by saying that it was about to define the third element of the offense, which it had just moments before explained was the  requirement that the using or carrying be "in relation … The same is true here with respect to "carrying," except that we can dispense with the qualifier "essen- tially." Gaudin error.