Case law

National Audubon Society, Inc., a Nonprofit Corporation v. James G. Watt, Secretary of the Department of the Interior of the Unitedstates, Both Individually and in His Official Capacity Appeal of the State of North Dakota and Garrison Diversion Conservancydistrict. National Audubon Society, Inc., a Nonprofit Corporation v. James G. Watt, Secretary of the Department of the Interior of the Unitedstates, Both Individually and in His Official Capacity Appeal of the State of North Dakota and Garrison Diversion Conservancydistrict

678 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 7, 1982

The Context of the Agreement 21 The opening paragraphs of the Stipulation and Order clearly set forth the purposes of the parties at the time they entered into the agreement. … Having done all this, however, and having given consideration to such information, they should be immune from incessant litigation.

National Petroleum Refiners Ass'n v. Federal Trade Commission

482 F.2d 672 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 1973

But the bill reported out clearly did not embrace the exercise of substantive rule-making power. … Moreover, the platforms of both the Republican and the Progressive Parties in the 1912 election called for establishment of a commission.

Association of National Advertisers, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission Kellogg Company, a Corporation v. Federal Trade Commission Chocolate Manufacturers Association of the United States of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission. Toy Manufacturers of America, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

617 F.2d 611 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 2, 1979

Moreover, Congress granted parties only qualified cross-examination rights, not trial-type cross-examination. 15 U.S.C. § 57a(c)(2), (3). … These procedures are supplemented by the Commission's rules ( 16 C.F.R. § 1.7 et seq.) and by procedures established in the notice of proposed rulemaking * * * .

Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. v. Sebelius

595 F.3d 1303 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 2, 2010

other applicant has received tentative approval), the date that is 75 days after the date as of which, as to each of the patents with respect to which the first applicant submitted and lawfully maintained a certification qualifying … In this instance, the latter two elements are clearly satisfied. Any imminent deprivation of Teva’s allegedly deserved exclusivity would be directly attributable to the FDA’s statutory interpretation.

United States v. Rayful Edmond, III

52 F.3d 1080 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 19, 1995

We reject Butler’s and McCraw’s claims, however, because we conclude that error in the lack of particularized factfinding as to these appellants was clearly harmless. … While it is a close question, we think the District Court’s determination to admit the taped conversation under Rule 801(d)(2)(E) was not clearly erroneous.

International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union v. Raymond J. Donovan

722 F.2d 795 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 29, 1983

The presence of an element of prediction is particularly likely when such policies involve dramatic departures from longstanding policy, and yet it is evident that such policies are not immune from judicial review. … Blumenthal, 566 F.2d 145, 151 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“Here, the AJC and other such groups will clearly remain free to pursue their travel busi-i nesses, however the tax status is finally resolved.

Frosch v. Monday

34 App. D.C. 338 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 17, 1910

We are therefore clearly of thé opinion that the individual interests did not vest upon the death of George N. … The word ‘issue’ is a general term, which, if not qualified or explained, may be construed to include grandchildren as well as children.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency and Russell E. Train, Administrator, Velsicol Chemical Corporation and Pineapple Growers Association of Hawaii, Intervenors. Earl L. Butz, Secretary of Agriculture of the United States v. Russell E. Train, Administrator of the Environmental Protection Agency, Velsicol Chemical Corporation, Intervenor. Velsicol Chemical Corporation v. Environmental Protection Agency, Russell E. Train, Administrator, Velsicol Chemical Corporation v. Russell E. Train, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

548 F.2d 998 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1977

Because we held in our panel opinion that § 7(c) was not intended to govern the allocation of the burden of persuasion, we found it unnecessary to decide whether suspension hearings held under FIFRA might not qualify as a … While we are sensitive to the danger of abuse in such consultations, there was clearly no unfairness in the circumstances of this case, since the effect of the resulting order was simply to recognize the registrant's right

United States v. Gordon Alexander, United States of America v. Benjamin Murdock

471 F.2d 923 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 25, 1973

The basic framework for sentences of punishment must be established by the legislative branch. … Blum’s testimony, because “what you are putting before me is not the man who did the examination, who, incidentally, was not qualified.

In re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litig.

292 F. Supp. 3d 14 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 10, 2017

Whole Foods Mkt., Inc. , 2007 WL 7632283 , at *1, an expert witness also must be "qualified" under Rule 702. An expert may be qualified by "knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education." FED. R. EVID . 702. … [Leitzinger] is clearly qualified) such that he could not understand it. Indeed, part of Dr. [Leitzinger's] opinion is that Dr. [Rausser's] analysis is consistent with economic theory."

United States v. Michael Wood, (Two Cases)

628 F.2d 554 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 21, 1980

Dabney would not qualify as an expert witness and made the tactical decision not to call Dr. Dabney as a lay witness (Finding 8); that counsel never interviewed Mrs. … Dabney would not qualify as an expert. Tr. I at 7-8.

Alvin Gandal v. Telemundo Group, Inc., Advo System, Inc. Alvin Gandal v. Telemundo Group, Inc. Alvin Gandal v. Telemundo Group, Inc., Reliance Group Holdings, Inc.

23 F.3d 539 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 20, 1994

But since the $1.50 cash dividend was not announced until July 3, 1986, none of these documents could have clearly indicated whether Blair thought warrantholders were entitled to the cash dividend. … Gandal's entitlement to an extra $1.50 per warrant, if he had exercised, does not automatically qualify him for an award of $1.50 per warrant in damages, nor does it even establish that he suffered a legal injury.

Evangelistic Godson v. Johns Hopkins Medicine

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 21, 2026

We begin with two principles that establish what is not required for a filing to constitute a “motion.” First, the filing need not be titled a “motion” or explicitly invoke the relevant rules. … Rudometkin clearly did that, and Godson clearly did not. I also agree with much of the majority’s reasoning and with its general statement of the governing legal standard.

United States v. Michael Monzel

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 19, 2011

Because the record does not establish that Monzel’s possession of her image caused all of her losses, Amy does not have a right to the full $3,263,758 she seeks. … Whatever else may be said of his crime, the record before us does not establish that Monzel caused all of Amy’s losses.

Patrocinia Meneses v. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare

442 F.2d 803 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 5, 1971

In cases arising both before and after the 1967 Amendments it has been clearly stated that claimant's evidence of physical impairment undercutting ability to engage in former employment puts a burden on the Secretary to come … It is obvious that claimant's educational background would qualify him for the thousands of light jobs that exist in the community.

National Petroleum Refiners Association v. Federal Trade Commission

482 F.2d 672 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 6, 1973

Moreover, the platforms of both the Republican and the Progressive Parties in the 1912 election called for establishment of a commission. … Such supervision raised the spectre of possible governmental immunization, through regulation, of monopolistic practices from more straightforward legal attack. See G.

City of Waukesha v. Environmental Protection Agency

320 F.3d 228 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 25, 2003

Further, NEI’s claims as to future coverage by CERCLA are hedged with qualifiers such as ‘‘typically’’ and ‘‘in some cases.’’ Petition- ers’ Reply Br. Tab A at 4. … There is nothing unreasonable about the agency’s view that whether the benefits of an MCL justify its costs qualifies as a ‘‘standard’’ by which the MCL may be mea- sured.

Orengo Caraballo v. Reich

11 F.3d 186 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 10, 1993

REGULATORY BACKGROUND Under the H-2A program, established by the Immigration and Nationality Act, Pub.L. No. 82-414, 66 Stat. 163 (1952), as amended by the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 (“IRCA”), Pub.L. … § 100.2 ) to approve such a request for alien importation under the H-2A program, the employer must first petition the Secretary of Labor to certify that: (A) there are not sufficient workers who are able, willing, and qualified

Kendall v. Gore Properties

236 F.2d 673 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 1956

Certainly such circumstances were not open to her observation, and she clearly had a right to assume that the landlord neither would create a risk nor expose her to possible danger through his introduction into her apartment … . 43 Both parties have recognized, and briefed us concerning rulings on, various evidence problems, but it seems unlikely that much question will arise, if as we assume and expect in the light of the record, Porter will qualify

Drexel Burnham Lambert Inc. And David Joe Ragan v. Commodity Futures Trading Commission and Sansom Refining Company

850 F.2d 742 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 24, 1988

For if the Commission’s interpretation of this section were correct, the innocent or negligent mishandling of client funds, which the Commission recognizes is immune from liability under section 4b in virtue of its scienter … Quite clearly it did not. Indeed, the entire thrust of the Commission’s opinion demonstrates that the Commission rejected the notion that Ragan acted in good faith.