Case law

Leflore Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

636 F.2d 454 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 5, 1980

broadcasting, it was thought that “[w]ith everybody on the air, nobody could be heard.” 21 Therefore, in the name of orderly broadcasting, the Federal Communications Act of 1934 limited the number of voices on the air by establishing … a penalty against Leflore and Dixie for any of the violations found in the proceeding below, it is beyond cavil that the FCC enjoyed wide latitude. 83 This broad discretion does not eliminate the FCC’s burden to express clearly

LA Env Actn Ntwrk v. EPA

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 26, 1999

LEAN, by contrast, evidently an organization of environmen- tally concerned citizens and groups, clearly meets prudential standing requirements. … I am not at all convinced that petitioners have carried their burden of establishing that they have standing to challenge the RCRA regulations.

National Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commission

362 F.2d 946 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 26, 1966

NBC alleged, supporting its allegations with factual affidavits of qualified engineers, that the proposed operations of KBOI with 25 kilowatts would cause substantial interference within WMAQ’s protected nighttime sky wave … KBOI concedes that its proposed operation does not measure up to the population requirement; however, it does clearly meet the area requirement and thus complies with the rule.

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.

James Edward Carlson v. James R. Schlesinger, Secretary of Defense

511 F.2d 1327 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 19, 1975

Clearly, Carlson may contest the propriety of his arrest as collateral consequences may as yet flow from the record-keeping emanating from it. See United States v. … Suffice it to say in response to this argument that we may assume, absent a specific policy directive from qualified foreign policy decision makers, that our allies are aware that American policy is not reflected in the individual

Chesapeake and Ohio Railway Company v. United States

571 F.2d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 22, 1977

The Commission order here clearly did not so provide. … Resp.Br. at 12. 66 The facts regarding the Southern Control II decision which clearly distinguish it from this case have been dealt with already.

Green v. Obergfell

121 F.2d 46 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 17, 1941

Under like circumstances, effect is given in the courts to the determinations of the judicatory bodies established by clubs and civil associations.” Harris v. Missouri Pac. R. … Baumgaertner, John Kennedy, Wendelin Geiser, and to their successors legally qualified, to constitute the Union herein named and known under the title of International Union of the United ■ Brewery Workmen, for the purpose

Asarco, Inc., Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company and Kennecott Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Southern California Edison Company, El Paso Electric Company, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Natural Gas Company, Southern Union Company, Southwest Gas Corporation, Intervenors. Southern California Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, El Paso Electric Company, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Arizona Public Service Company, Southern Union Company, El Paso Natural Gas Company, Southwest Gas Corporation, Intervenors. Pacific Gas and Electric Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Arizona Public Service Company, Southern Union Company, Southwest Gas Corporation, El Paso Natural Gas Company, El Paso Electric Company, Intervenors. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Arizona Public Service Company, El Paso Natural Gas Company, Southern Union Company, Southwest Gas Corporation, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Public Service Commission of West Virginia, Intervenors. Asarco, Inc., Inspiration Consolidated Copper Company and Kennecott Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Arizona Public Service Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Southern California Gas Company, Southwest Gas Corporation, Southern Union Company, Tenneco Oil Company, Intervenors. El Paso Natural Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, El Paso Electric Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Phelps Dodge Corporation, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Tenneco Oil Company, Southern California Edison Company, Southern California Gas Company, Southern Union Company, People of State of California, Governor Edmund G. Brown, Jr., Arizona Public Service Company, Southwest Gas Corporation, Public Service Commission of West Virginia, Intervenors. El Paso Natural Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Arizona Public Service Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Southern Union Company, Southern California Gas Company, Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement and Power District, Public Utilities Commission of State of California, Southwest Gas Corporation, Governor George Deukmejian, Intervenors

777 F.2d 764 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 29, 1985

In this case, the March 31 Order was clearly of the latter sort and therefore not reviewable. … Other cases applying Sec. 19 establish a clear pattern of adhering to the terms of the statute. See, e.g., FPC v.

United States v. Ali Ali

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 11, 2013

So long as the government could establish that he had committed piracy on the high seas—a crime over which all nations may exercise jurisdiction—this expectation was met. … As UNCLOS § 101(c) recognizes, it is self-defeating to prosecute those pirates desperate enough to do the dirty work but immunize the planners, organizers, and negotiators who remain ashore.

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.

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.

Illinois Commerce Commission v. Interstate Commerce Commission

879 F.2d 917 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 18, 1989

Congress’ express placement of ratemaking terms at the beginning of the phrase[], indicates its intent that the general terms at the end of the phrase are qualified by the term “intrastate rates.”) … [switching] service [on an industrial siding] not be discontinued without notice and hearing was clearly within the police power of the State”); Railroad Comm’n of California v. Southern Pac.

Ford Motor Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Intervenor. Department of Defense v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Company, Intervenor

714 F.2d 1157 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 9, 1983

Reform Congress ordered now calls for significant deregulation allowing "to the maximum extent possible, competition and the demand for services to establish reasonable rates." … Such rates thereafter are immune from attack and may be adjusted upward, within statutorily prescribed limits, 49 U.S.C. § 10707a, without Commission surveillance. 7 II.

Oglala Sioux Tribe v. NRC

45 F.4th 291 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 9, 2022

By March 2018, the agency and the Tribe had not agreed to a specific survey method, but they had agreed to an overall approach that involved a qualified contractor, other Lakota Sioux tribes, tribal elders, and iterative … When an agency raises a purely legal argument for the first time in litigation, a court may consider that argument if it is both clearly correct and would render remand pointless under the harmless error standard.

Commty TV Inc v. FCC

216 F.3d 1133 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 7, 2000

s 308(b) to determine that each broadcaster receiving such a license was financially qualified. … It clearly did. The FCC left no mystery as to its rationale.

United States v. Mouling, Willie

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 6, 2009

Circuit precedent had clearly held that compound voir dire questions constitute reversible error. … The government produced physical evidence—the actual cookies themselves—and presented laboratory analyses to establish quantity.

Commonwealth of Massachusetts, Ex Rel. v. Microsoft Corporation, United States of America v. Microsoft Corporation, the Computer and Communications Industry Association and the Software and Information Industry Association

373 F.3d 1199 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 2004

expert's testimony regarding the definition of API is a legal analysis rather than the opinion of a computer scientist and is therefore beyond the "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education" for which he was qualified … A consent decree that addresses the disincentive software developers faced but does not altogether prohibit commingling — which would not be without its costs — surely qualifies. 147 b.

Clinton Cole v. Burns International Security Services

105 F.3d 1465 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 11, 1997

This argument clearly misses the point. … Yet the majority "assume[s] ... that employees who would qualify for in forma pauperis status in the federal courts will similarly qualify for a waiver of fees under the AAA Rules." Maj. Op. 152 n.12.

Akm LLC v. Secretary of Labor, Dept. of Labor

675 F.3d 752 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 6, 2012

On the one hand, employers must make records of workplace injuries in whatever form the Secretary requires within the time period established by the Secretary—here, seven days after the injury. … We do not believe Congress expressly established a statute of limitations only to implicitly encourage the Secretary to ignore it. See Whitman v. Am.

Florida Power & Light Company v. United States of America and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Wisconsin Electric Power Company v. United States of America and Nuclear Regulatory Commission, Arkansas Power & Light Company v. United States of America and Nuclear Regulatory Commission

846 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 13, 1988

Clearly, Congress intended NRC to go beyond the impositions of fees already assessable under IOAA. See FPL Brief at 28; maj. op. at 769. … Instead, the NRC cites us to a very different judicial gloss of the word "fee" found in the context of intergovernmental tax immunity. See NRC Brief at 40 n. 29.