Case law

Trans Un Corp v. FTC

267 F.3d 1138 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 13, 2001

in establish- ing the consumer's eligibility for [credit]." 15 U.S.C. … We thus turn to the one non-constitutional argument that Trans Union clearly mounts: that the Commission's decision is unsupported by substantial evidence.

Davis v. Washington

512 F.2d 956 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 27, 1975

We think the precedents establish that either demonstration is legally sufficient to shift the burden of establishing job relatedness to the employer. 27 9 Appellees also urge us to consider the affirmative efforts of the … That this should be true is deplorable, but it does not follow that one who cannot pass the test is qualified to become a police officer. 25 Griggs v.

Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia, Local 10 v. National Labor Relations Board, Peerless Publications, Inc., Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. Peerless Publication, Inc. (Pottstown Mercury), Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia, Local 10, Intervenor

636 F.2d 550 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 13, 1980

It is firmly established that a newspaper is not immune from the coverage of the National Labor Relations Act merely because it is an agency of the press. See, e. g., Associated Press v. … The basic skill level to qualify for the job is not a bargainable subject.

Intermountain Insurance Serv. v. Commissioner, IRS

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 2011

We would simply assume Congress intended the text to convey that established pre-reenactment meaning. See Davis v. … Moreover, clearly aware of that debate, Congress added subsection (i) to section 6501(e)(1)(A) to resolve it.

Jack O. Black v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America

762 F.2d 106 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 21, 1985

In order to qualify as a “carrier” for the purposes of § 11343, an acquiring entity must be one “providing transportation subject to the jurisdiction of the Interstate Commerce Commission under ... chapter 105 of this title … In this case, contrary to petitioner’s contention, the Commission’s decision not to impose employee protective conditions on IHR was clearly an appropriate exercise of its discretion.

Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors, Inc. v. United States Department of Health, Education and Welfare, United States Food and Drug Administration and Donald Kennedy, Commissioner of Food and Drug Administration, Independent Cosmetic Manufacturers and Distributors, Inc. v. Joseph A. Califano, Jr., Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

574 F.2d 553 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 11, 1978

Second, the Commissioner added a fifth subsection to his original proposal which invited petitions from interested parties to establish specific uniform names for cosmetic ingredients. … I suggest that the answer to this is clearly no. As stated in this court's opinion in Mobil Oil v.

Georgia Hall and Edward Hall v. General Motors Corporation, Buick Division, Larry Buick, Incorporated

647 F.2d 175 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 24, 1980

The trial judge has broad leeway in making this determination; her ruling will not be upset unless it is clearly erroneous. Derr v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 404 F.2d 634, 639 (10th Cir. 1968). … An accident reconstruction expert is apparently one who is qualified to give an opinion as to the cause of an accident without having witnessed the event. Cf. J.A. 682. 29 . J.A. 453-54. 30 .

United States v. Marcos Loinas Anderson, A/K/A Marcos Loynas Anderson, A/K/A T. Torrero, A/K/A Samuel Perez, United States of America v. Maria Berdecia, A/K/A Maria C. Depalacio, A/K/A Consuela, United States of America v. Norberto Garces, A/K/A Victorio Torres, Piro, United States of America v. Gabriel Ruperto Davis-Munoz, A/K/A Gabriel Davis, Gabelin, United States of America v. Alfredo Brathwaite, A/K/A Sealy, Alfredo West, Freddie, United States of America v. Beverly Elaine Nelson, A/K/A Beverly M. Nelson, United States of America v. Robert Luis Castillo, A/K/A Robert Luis Castillo-Garrido, United States of America v. Antonio Scott, A/K/A Tony Anderson, Tony, United States of America v. Leonard Lancelot Shand, A/K/A Steve, United States of America v. Vielka Dudley, A/K/A Vielka Dudley-Maynard, Vielka Davis, Benky, United States of America v. Antonio Scott, A/K/A Tony Anderson, Tony, United States of America v. Michael Jonathan Booze, United States of America v. Thomas Timothy Booze, A/K/A Timmy, United States of America v. Gregory Orlander Booze

39 F.3d 331 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 9, 1995

Specifically, the appellants argue that the trial evidence at most established multiple conspiracies rather than the single conspiracy charged in the indictment. … is not included in establishing the defendant's offense level under this guideline. 72 U.S.S.G.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. Thomas

805 F.2d 410 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 7, 1986

would forge between the Report’s reference to International Harvester’s dicta about the usefulness of NCPs and the NRDC’s argument that the 1977 amendments literally mandated a leader-based standard is far too tenuous to qualify … Second, as quoted in the text, both the House and the Senate Reports clearly contemplate a gasoline-based revised standard.

United States v. Smith, Arnett

401 F.3d 497 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 20, 2004

The same agreement, however, established that Smith and Reid would in fact own the property as tenants in common, each with a fifty percent share. … Even if his offhand reference to his memory could be read to qualify the first of his statements that the SAGA check was used for an innocuous Disney excursion, it  12 would not undercut

State Of Idaho v. Interstate Commerce Commission

35 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 1994

Thus, the State can clearly assert the NEPA claim. The harder question is whether the State has prudential standing to assert the Endangered Species Act ("ESA") claim. … These events would seem to qualify as "receipt of" and "concurrence with" the species list, but 180 days have long since elapsed and no biological assessment has been prepared. 80 We believe, however, that the violation of

Garvey v. National Transportation Safety Board

190 F.3d 571 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 21, 1999

The NTSB believed the former insufficient to qualify for Board deference under section 44709(d)(3). … The reconsideration process qualifies as a proceeding conducted by the Board. See 49 C.F.R. § 821.50 .

Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc. v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Rsr Corporation, International Mill Service, Dow Chemical Company, B.F. Goodrich Company, American Iron and Steel Institute, American Mining Congress, Chemical Waste Management, Inc., Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, Solite Corporation, Chemical Manufacturers Association, American Petroleum Institute, Hazardous Waste Treatment Council, Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition, Battery Council International, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, Citizens for a Safe Environment, Marine Shale Processors, Inc., Steel Manufacturers Association Specialty Steel Industry of the United States, Tennessee Eastman Company, Cyprus Miami Mining Corporation, International Metals Reclamation Company, Inc., Intervenors. Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Rsr Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Solite Corporation v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Akj Industries, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Marine Shale Processors, Inc. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Tennessee Eastman Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Citizens for a Safe Environment v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Akj Industries, Inc., Intervenor. Chemical Manufacturers Association v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, American Iron and Steel Institute v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, American Coke and Coal Chemicals Institute, Intervenor. Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., Dow Chemical Company, International Mill Service, Inc., American Mining Congress, American Iron and Steel Institute, Intervenors. Solite Corporation v. Carol M. Browner, Administrator, United States Environmental Protection Agency, and United States Environmental Protection Agency, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc., Edison Electric Institute, American Mining Congress, Dow Chemical Company, International Mill Service, Inc., Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., American Iron and Steel Institute, Intervenors. Tennessee Eastman Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Association of Battery Recyclers, Inc., Horsehead Resource Development Company, Inc., Dow Chemical Company, International Mill Service, Inc., American Mining Congress, American Iron and Steel Institute, Edison Electric Institute, Intervenors. Continental Cement Company, Lone Star Industries, Inc., Holnam Inc., Safety-Kleen Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Cement Kiln Recycling Coalition v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Edison Electric Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, American Public Power Association, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, American Mining Congress, Intervenors. Lafarge Corporation v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Edison Electric Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, American Public Power Association, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Intervenors. Giant Group, Ltd. v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Edison Electric Institute, National Rural Electric Cooperative Association, American Public Power Association, Utility Solid Waste Activities Group, Intervenors

16 F.3d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 22, 1994

The agency pointed out that the definition of hazardous waste in its final regulations was less stringent than the one it had initially proposed (meaning fewer special wastes would qualify as hazardous wastes), and that the … We found these allegations inadequate to establish standing.

Robert M. Shelton v. United States

404 F.2d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 13, 1969

The authority for issuance of such a subpoena under the Rule is qualified by its provision that the court may quash the subpoena “if compliance would be unreasonable or oppressive.” … provides: Every person who having been summoned as a witness by the authority of either House of Congress to give testimony or to produce papers upon any matter under inquiry before either House, or any joint committee established

Roger W. Gale v. Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary, Department of Interior

643 F.2d 826 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 8, 1980

OBERDORFER, District Judge, concurring : 35 I agree that the Trust Territory of the Pacific Islands is sufficiently "like" a Territory of the United States to qualify it for exemption by operation of Section 551(1)(C) of … Because Pickus is clearly distinguishable we find that it does not preclude exempting the Trust Territory under 5 U.S.C. § 551 (1)(C).

Save Our Cumberland Mountains, Inc. v. Clark

725 F.2d 1422 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 2, 1984

In Title IV of the Act, Congress established the Abandoned Mine Reclamation Fund (Fund). All mine operators are required to pay into the Fund a fee based on tonnage of coal mined. … from the final version of the Act indicates only that Congress did not wish to restrict rights conferred by other statutes or laws to bring actions against the Secretary. 23 It does not manifest a congressional intent to qualify

Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

454 F.2d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 1971

We do not challenge the Commission’s well established right to modify or even overrule an established precedent or approach, for an administrative agency concerned with furtherance of the public interest is not bound to rigid … Yet it is clearly irrational to suggest that the mere failure to specify issues, by itself, somehow fundamentally alters the basic nature of the broadcast when its content remains entirely unchanged.

Caribbean Broadcasting System, Ltd. v. Cable & Wireless PLC

148 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 1998

verse effect upon the commerce of the United States suffi- cient to support subject matter jurisdiction over Counts II-XI [see JA at 129-131]--was not addressed by anything in the Second Amended Complaint, which more clearly … therefore, so long as it makes allegations that, if proven, would show that the challenged conduct had a "direct, substantial, and reasonably foreseeable effect" upon an aspect of commerce to which the Sherman Act, as qualified

Williams Natural Gas Co. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

943 F.2d 1320 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 6, 1991

Hence, our decision in Williams I established only — and could establish only — that the orders under review were not self-evidently justified. … ARCO points out that a tight formation well drilled between May 12, 1990 and January 1, 1991 qualifies for neither the ceiling-based ITC nor the amended and now calendar-based ITC.

Rosenberg v. U.S. Dep't of Def.

342 F. Supp. 3d 62 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 27, 2018

If so, courts "then determine whether ... disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). … Dep't of Homeland Sec. , 626 F.3d 678 , 681 (2d Cir. 2010) ("The sentence structure of Exemption (b)(7)(E) indicates that the qualifying phrase ('if such disclosure could reasonably be expected to risk circumvention of the