Case law

The Montana Power Company v. Federal Power Commission, the Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana, Secretary of Interior, Intervenors. The Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the Flathead Reservation, Montana v. Federal Power Commission, the Montana Power Company, Intervenor

445 F.2d 739 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 1971

Commission to adjust annual charges, even though both proposals contained a minimum period for successive adjustments. 93 It would be difficult indeed to imagine a clearer or more specific expression of congressional intent to immunize … Clearly, such an inquiry into the purpose and functional role of the provision is necessary here; for, as Judge (later Justice) Cardozo said in Berkovitz v.

Gillars v. United States

182 F.2d 962 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 19, 1950

We, therefore, do not look to the Con *973 stitution, or political institutions of the conqueror, for authority to establish a government for the territory of the enemy in his possession, during its military occupation, nor … The Court clearly considered the provision valid because it applied only to citizens.

Keith Thomas v. Eric Holder, Jr.

750 F.3d 899 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 6, 2014

Moreover, to trigger the right of access, these claims must qualify as non-frivolous. See id. at 352 n. 2, 353 n. 3, 116 S.Ct. 2174 . … But clearly, the fact that a statute postdates a constitutional decision cannot somehow render that statute constitutional.

Jamal Kifafi v. Hilton Hotel Retirement Plan

701 F.3d 718 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 14, 2012

El Paso Corp., 653 F.3d 1281, 1290 (10th Cir. 2011) (noting party concession the plan “must qualify under the ‘133 1/3 percent’ test if it qualifies at all”); Hurlic v. S. Cal. … But the standard for prospective compliance does not ipso facto establish the adequacy of a retroactive amendment or court-imposed relief.

National Shooting Sports Foundation, Inc. v. Jones

716 F.3d 200 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 2013

When it passed FOPA, Congress clearly envisioned some sort of collection of firearms records, so long as it was incidental to some other statutory function specifically delegated to [ ]ATF.” … NSSF argues that ATF acted arbitrarily in sending the demand letter to qualifying FFLs located in Arizona, California, New Mexico and Texas instead of considering “actual geographic proximity to the border with Mexico, evidence

Bernegger v. Exec. Office for U.S. Attorneys

334 F. Supp. 3d 74 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 20, 2018

As an initial matter, both declarants establish their competence "to testify on the matters stated." Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(4). … But, while Exemption 6 is limited to records "the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy," id. § 556(b)(6), "[t]he adverb 'clearly' ... is not used in Exemption 7(C)," Nat'l

National Broadcasting Co., Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Boise Valley Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor. Gem State Broadcasting Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, Boise Valley Broadcasters, Inc., Intervenor

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 skywave … 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.

Production Workers Union Of Chicago And Vicinity, Local 707, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board

793 F.2d 323 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 13, 1986

Moreover, even if the intent of Congress were less than pellucid, the Board's conclusion that Section 8(b)(4) prohibits all union-aided picketing by independent contractors, we believe, would scarcely qualify as a "reasonable … Congress and the courts long ago clearly established that Section 8(b)(4) bars only pressure against neutrals, and the Board has adduced no remotely tenable argument for its breathtakingly novel interpretation of the provision

American Flint Glass Workers' Union of North America v. National Labor Relations Board, Bartlett-Collins Company, Intervenor

230 F.2d 212 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 1956

The Board, in its order of October 19, 1954, the order appealed from, reversed the examiner's findings and found that, upon the whole record, the General Counsel had failed to establish, by a preponderance of the evidence … It seems to adopt for examiners of administrative agencies the 'clearly erroneous' rule of the Fed.Rules Civ.Proc., 52(a), 28 U.S.C.A., applicable to courts. In Universal Camera Corp. v.

United States v. Bernard J. Heinlein A/K/A Jimmy Holiday, United States of America v. David A. Walker, Jr., United States of America v. Frank J. Walker

490 F.2d 725 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 7, 1973

Whelton testified that tests had established that the decedent had had sexual relations not long before her expiration. 8 The defense put forward at trial was an effort to demolish Harding's credibility. … Under the circumstances of this case the elements of the offense of murder in the first degree which the Government must establish beyond a reasonable doubt as to the first count are as follows: One, that the defendants were

Neild v. District of Columbia

110 F.2d 246 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 1940

Clearly there is a substantial difference between the two; sufficient to satisfy even the requirements of the Fourteenth Amendment. 63 *260 While the power of selection for classification is not an arbitrary one but must, … It has been held, also, that the privileges and immunities clause (U.S.Const. Art.

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Dole

802 F.2d 474 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 18, 1986

The first concern is clearly misplaced and need not detain us. The evil feared by petitioners will never eventuate if rescission is never effected. … Primary conduct was clearly being *407 affected.

International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers v. Federal Election Commission

678 F.2d 1092 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 6, 1982

Martin Tractor apart, we find no support for the Commission’s position that section 437h(a) qualifies voters to raise constitutional issues only in relation to their rights as voters. … Representative Hansen spoke of his amendment as “spelling] out more clearly the rules governing election activities that apply equally to labor unions and corporations.” Id. at 43379.

United States v. Concord Mgmt. & Consulting LLC

317 F. Supp. 3d 598 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 13, 2018

With regard to actions that do not rise to that level, the regulations do not clearly require the Special Counsel to follow orders, so it is difficult to see how "good cause" would arise from the Special Counsel's refusal … The Statutory Authority to Appoint the Special Counsel Qualifying as an inferior officer, however, is not enough to satisfy the Appointments Clause.

Aguayo, Agustin v. Harvey, Francis

476 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 16, 2007

An applicant who would have qualified for CO status before entering the military, however, generally is not eligible for CO classification once in the service. Id. § 75.4(a). … Clearly, this was not an open-and-shut case: both Aguayo’s Company Commander and the investigating officer recommended the application be approved.

Sharon A. Moore v. National Association of Securities Dealers, Inc

762 F.2d 1093 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 19, 1985

To establish proper standing, Moore must show an injury-in-fact caused by the alleged misconduct of the defendant which is redressable by this court. Simon v. … These factual findings are entitled to considerable deference and can be overturned only if clearly erroneous. Fed.R.Civ.P. 52(a).

Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission and the United States of America

826 F.2d 101 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 14, 1987

[the FCC] will grant an STA [special temporary authority] to a qualified, independent trustee with power to consummate the tender offer...." J.A. at 81 (emphasis added). … The majority does not contend that petitioners lack the minimum requisite "injury" to establishing standing to challenge the FCC's Policy Statement.

United States v. Michael Pryce, United States of America v. Nathaniel M. Gaskins, A/K/A Andre Michael Redman, "Terry", United States of America v. Calvin L. Thomas, A/K/A "Peter", United States of America v. Antonio Donovan, A/K/A Howard Turner, Donovan Antonio, "Jerry"

938 F.2d 1343 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 20, 1991

(Reginald, and perhaps Anthony, testified under a grant of immunity from the government.) … Only once did she accuse him of clearly criminal activity.

Office of Communication of the United Church of Christ v. Federal Communications Commission

707 F.2d 1413 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 1983

If the criterion of “public interest” were limited to such matters, how could the Commission choose between two applicants for the same facilities, each of whom is financially and technically qualified to operate a station … Congress amended the equal time provision in order to exempt appearances on news programs, but qualified its exemption by stating that it intended no exception “from the obligation imposed upon them under this Act to operate

National Small Shipments Traffic Conference, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America

590 F.2d 345 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 29, 1978

. *348 Following hearing, the Commission again concluded that the Eastern Carriers had validated their general cost allocation methodology, 16 and further that the platform study, although concededly flawed, was “clearly … they foreclose effective judicial review of the agency’s final decision. 49 The question here is whether the Commission, having postponed a hearing on the merits and prescribed an “interim” substantive rule, is somehow immune