Case law

U.S. International Trade Commission v. ASAT, Inc.

411 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 10, 2005

In this instance, the court is required to determine “(1) whether the District of Columbia bore  6 a sufficiently ‘reasonable relation to the subject matter of the investigation’ to qualify … Oct. 5, 2004), merely being a “sales and service” subsidiary does not establish the subsidiary’s control over documents and information in the parent’s possession.

National Ass'n of Home Builders v. Environmental Protection Agency

682 F.3d 1032 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 2012

Reg. at 21,702.  4 could “opt out” by signing a statement certifying that the housing qualified for this exemption, and renovations could then proceed without following the training, certification … A fortiori, courts may  18 not, under the guise of APA review, enforce compliance with a procedural requirement that the RFA clearly excludes from our purview.

Stinson v. New York Life Ins. Co.

167 F.2d 233 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 15, 1948

In a memorandum opinion the trial court expressed the view that the term “engaged in war” has a meaning so well recognized and of such long historical acceptation that it must be presumed to have been clearly understood by … Appellee urges strongly that we must adopt the view expressed by the lower court or run counter to well established precedent. That argument requires inspection.

United States ex rel. Schweizer v. Océ N.V.

677 F.3d 1228 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 10, 2012

Although decisions not to prosecute may be immune from review, the same cannot be said of decisions to dispose of a pending case. Compare Heckler, 470 U.S. at 833 , 105 S.Ct. 1649 , with Rinaldi v. … This qualifies as an injury in fact. Section 3730(c)(2)(B) causes the injury because § 3730(c)(2)(A) would otherwise permit dismissal without judicial scrutiny.

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

976 F.2d 2 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 24, 1992

The challenge by the individual companies to testing protocols established in this rule is rejected. … thereunder to qualifying owners and operators of facilities that discharge into waters of the United States or POTWs.

Glass Packaging Institute v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury

737 F.2d 1083 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 6, 1984

. *1088 21 This is clearly a concrete, individualized injury which is directly attributable to the Bureau’s approval of PET liquor bottles. … containers free of competition from containers approved in an illegal fashion.” 25 Unless there is some indication that this competitive interest is one protected or regulated under Section 5301(a), plaintiffs’ claim cannot qualify

Cities of Statesville v. Atomic Energy Commission and United States of America, Duke Power Company, Intervenor. Power Planning Committee of the Municipal Electric Association of Massachusetts v. Atomic Energy Commission and United States of America, Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp., Intervenor

441 F.2d 962 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1969

Chairman Cole recognized the difficulty in interpreting this qualifying language of section 104(b) and noted: 63 * * * I think it should be stated that it is not the intention of the authors of this bill that a license for … It is not correct that decision of these issues is to be dominated by the experts subject to the sole condition that they must speak clearly and seem reasonable.

Democratic National Committee v. Federal Communications Commission

717 F.2d 1471 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 27, 1983

But the fairness doctrine is distinct from the statutory requirement of the Communications Act that equal time be allotted to all qualified candidates for public office. See 47 U.S.'C. § 315(a) (1976). … However, neither the Commission nor the courts have established petitioners’ belief as law.

William C. Coleman v. United States

357 F.2d 563 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 28, 1965

No more is necessary to demonstrate that the judge considered the burden to be upon appellant to establish that the sentence should be reduced. … Then again, I am not qualified to weigh his personality, or anything, but it seems to me that four years — it is better than four years now — of his experience had made enough change that I do not believe he would get into

Airmark Corp. v. Federal Aviation Administration

758 F.2d 685 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 29, 1985

If the FAA had consistently applied the Aeroservicios Ecuatorianos precedent, perhaps no applicant would ever have qualified for an exemption. The Aeroservicios order can be distinguished on other grounds. … The FAA may, however, establish different time periods for "good cause.” Id.

United States v. Holland

41 F. Supp. 3d 82 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 30, 2014

Because the factual proffer does not clearly establish Defendant’s knowledge, the Court finds that Defendant’s prior conviction has little, if any, probative value. … Edelin, 128 F.Supp.2d 23, 33 (D.D.C.2001) (“Criminal defendants are only entitled to statements of non-testifying witnesses or co-conspirators if those statements qualify as Brady material.”).

Public Service Commission v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

813 F.2d 448 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 6, 1987

The Commission’s conclusion that the policy announced in Arkla was applicable to this case is clearly supported by the record. … The Commission clearly acted within its discretion in refusing to exclude the stock used to acquire these two businesses from Tenneco’s capital structure. 21 V.

David K. Wachtel, Jr. And Hickory Investments, Inc. v. Office of Thrift Supervision, David K. Wachtel, Jr., John W. Haley, Charles W. Bone, W.L. Bone, J. Thomas Holland, Ii, and Hickory Investments, Inc. v. Timothy Ryan, Director, Office of Thrift Supervision, John W. Haley v. Office of Thrift Supervision, J. Thomas Holland, II v. Office of Thrift Supervision

982 F.2d 581 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 1993

These allegations, if established, would have satisfied the requirements for the imposition of a monetary remedy under 12 U.S.C. § 1818 (b)(6)(A). … And OTS has used § 1818(b)(6)(A) to seek enforcement of a net worth agreement where it could establish unjust enrichment. See Akin, 950 F.2d at 1183-84 .

Bismullah Ex Rel. Bismullah v. Gates

551 F.3d 1068 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 1, 2008

A search for information without regard to whether it is “reasonably available” is clearly not required by Bismullah I. … Disputes about what qualifies as “reasonably available,” already a key point of contention, see, e.g., Bismullah Petition for Release and Other Relief ¶¶ 165-68, 175; Pet’rs’ Joint Br. in Support of Pending Motions at 23,

Nat'l Parks Conservation Ass'n v. Semonite

916 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2019

And as they also point out, courts regularly find that such concerns demonstrate that a project qualifies as highly controversial. … Although section 110(f) clearly encompasses physical effects, nothing in the statute’s text so limits its reach.

Canning v. U.S. Dep't of State

346 F. Supp. 3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 24, 2018

There was no reason for the Department to search for records created after its earlier release of records to the Canning Plaintiffs-or after publication of the Gulf News Report article-and the record clearly establishes that … To start, the Court is unconvinced that Document C06320987 "is clearly the final version of the letter." Dkt. 80 at 26.

United States v. McCants, Calvin

434 F.3d 557 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 13, 2006

The Government therefore relied heavily on these conversations to establish the scope of McCants’ culpability. … This is not to say the record clearly contravenes the sentence he received, only that crucial facts remain unsettled.

Chamber of Commerce of the Uni v. EPA

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 29, 2011

Cir. 1998) (finding it unnecessary to address the standing of a party whose presence or absence is immaterial to a suit’s outcome, where another petitioner clearly has standing). … Indeed, notwithstanding their use of “virtually” as a qualifier, the petitioners do not describe any way in which the standards will differ.

Earl A. Carsey v. United States

392 F.2d 810 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 1967

Clearly, we think, it did not prevent a fair trial. 7 The trial judge should have handled the matter as he first proposed, through a cautionary instruction. 7 Both the prosecutor and defense counsel are charged with conducting … It does so by stretching the immunity from the double jeopardy provision of the fifth amendment to embrace a factual situation far beyond the purpose and reasoning of the Founding Fathers. 59 In the words of William H.

Intercollegiate Broadcast System, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board

571 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 2009

Rates should “most clearly represent the rates and terms that would have been negotiated in the marketplace between a willing buyer and a willing seller.” Id. … Commissioner, 501 U.S. 868 (1990), only the heads of cabinet-level departments within the executive branch qualify. According to Royalty Logic, the Library of Congress is within the legislative branch.