Case law

Frederick Douglass Foundation, Inc. v. DC

82 F.4th 1122 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 15, 2023

C.R. 7 We appreciate that our cases have not always clearly delineated the elements of a free speech selective enforcement claim. … Such concerns are mitigated, however, by the reality that selective enforcement claims will often be difficult to establish.

Independent Petroleum Association of America v. Bruce Babbitt

92 F.3d 1248 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 21, 1996

Because we conclude that DOI impermissibly departed from its established practices in attempting to collect royalties on the settlement *1251 payment, we reverse the District Court and hold that the gas producer appellant … The court also determined that even if the letter were a rule, it was exempt'from notice-and-comment rulemaking because “it clearly was interpretative not substantive.”

Transwestern Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, the Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Process Gas Consumers Group, Southern California Gas Company, El Paso Natural Gas Company, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, the Kansas Power and Light Company, Southwest Gas Corporation, Williams Natural Gas Company, Intervenors. Transwestern Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Southern California Gas Company, Southwest Gas Corporation, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Williams Natural Gas Company, Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, El Paso Natural Gas Company, Citizens Energy Corporation, Intervenors. Transwestern Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Williams Natural Gas Company, Southern California Gas Company, Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Intervenors. Transwestern Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Kansas Power & Light Company, Natural Gas Clearinghouse, Inc., Williams Natural Gas Company, Southern California Gas Company, Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Psi, Inc., Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., Southwest Gas Corp., Intervenors. Public Utilities Commission of the State of California v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Kansas Power & Light Company, Natural Gas Clearinghouse, Inc., Williams Natural Gas Company, Southern California Gas Company, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Psi, Inc., Southwest Gas Corp., Transwestern Pipeline Company, Intervenors. Kansas Power & Light Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Natural Gas Clearinghouse, Inc., Williams Natural Gas Company, Pacific Gas & Electric Company, Public Utilities Commission of the State of California, Southern California Gas Company, Psi, Inc., Transwestern Pipeline Company, Intervenors

897 F.2d 570 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 23, 1990

Thus the court was clearly untroubled by a rate system under which a customer could not know the exact charge for service in a given period until after the end of the period. … FERC, 893 F.2d 349, 356-57 (D.C.Cir.1989), such remarks were clearly inconsistent with the acknowledged power of the Commission to establish, and to alter prospectively, fixed charges such as demand charges, avoidable if

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. And Consolidated National Intervenors v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., Intervenors. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Commonwealth Edison Company, Pacific Legal Foundation, Intervenors. The State of New York v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and the United States of America, Commonwealth Edison Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Baltimore Gas and Electric Co., State of Wisconsin, Intervenors. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission and United States of America, Commonwealth Edison Company, Tennessee Valley Authority, Baltimore Gas and Electric Company, Intervenors

685 F.2d 459 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 29, 1982

He has severely qualified and limited the Commission's authority to determine by an otherwise reasonable generic process that certain factors do not merit separate consideration in individual licensing proceedings. 134 Clearly … Such an assumption is clearly reasonable.

Engine Manufacturers Ass'n v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

88 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 1996

Nor, under Chevron, may an agency avoid the Congressional intent clearly expressed in the text simply by asserting that its preferred approach would be better policy. … California is the only state that qualifies for the waiver, because it was the only state that had adopted emissions control standards prior to March 30, 1966. . 1977 amendments, § 129(b), 91 Stat. at 750 (CAA, § 177) (codified

Common Cause v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

674 F.2d 921 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 26, 1982

Exemption 6 protects “information of a personal nature where disclosure would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy!.]” Id. § 552b(c)(6). … With regard to the legality of the decision to close a meeting, the Act establishes a foreseeability standard.

Dagmar Wilson v. United States of America, Donna Allen v. United States of America, Russell Nixon v. United States

369 F.2d 198 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 2, 1966

The broad immunity of Congressmen from questioning outside of Congress for actions taken with respect to contempt citations, see United States v. … We need not presently pause to inquire into the Subcommittee's power to conduct its hearings in executive session (although that power seems clearly to have been established in the circumstances of this case), 3 for we may

United States v. Dennis Butler

955 F.3d 1052 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 14, 2020

Nonetheless, the record as a whole “clearly and beyond any reasonable doubt implicated the defendant,” People v. … Napue, which is an essential element of establishing a due-process violation in the first place.

Newspaper Guild of Greater Philadelphia, Local 10 v. National Labor Relations Board

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. … newspaper’s management without vitally affecting the interests of the employees; regulation of the latter interferes substantially with the civil and economic rights of the employees (and indeed their private lives) without clearly

Paul A. Cimino v. International Business Machines Corporation

3 F.4th 412 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 6, 2021

When Congress has abrogated the common law in the FCA, it has done so clearly. See 31 U.S.C. § 3729(b)(1)(B) (altering the common law scienter requirement); Escobar, 136 S. Ct. at 1999 n.2. … To qualify as plausible, the pleaded facts must “allow[] the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id.

United States v. John C. Tarantino, United States of America v. Robert H. Burns, United States of America v. Fred B. Black, Jr., United States of America v. Wilfred Samuel Bell, A/K/A Sam Bell

846 F.2d 1384 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 12, 1988

The evidence established that the appellants had travelled from Washington, D.C. to Los Angeles to purchase narcotics. Other evidence established that the narcotics were later sold in D.C. … Bell 44 The evidence clearly established that Bell was the conspiracy's major distributor of cocaine in Washington, D.C. See, e.g., Tr. 98-118, 526-29.

Saad v. Securities & Exchange Commission

873 F.3d 297 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 13, 2017

Fourth, binding circuit precedent—indeed, law of the case—has established that the Commission “may approve ‘expulsion not as a penalty but as a means of protecting investors.’” … But the Concurring Opinion cites no language in Kokesh that even suggests such a sweeping holding, let alone that clearly "eviscerates” our precedent.

Environmental Defense Fund v. Environmental Protection Agency

598 F.2d 62 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 3, 1978

A careful medical history will almost invariably establish such a relationship.” … This phase-out is limited by the EPA Administrator’s discretionary authority to grant temporary conditional exemptions for petitioners who qualify to his satisfaction under two tests.

In re Domestic Airline Travel Antitrust Litigation

378 F. Supp. 3d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 13, 2019

P. 23(c)(2)(B), which sets forth seven items that must be clearly and concisely stated. … On February 25, 2019, this Court entered an Order granting the Plaintiffs' Motion to Disburse Funds for Costs of Class Notice from the Qualified Settlement Fund. See Order, ECF No. 343.

United States v. William Cordova

806 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Indeed, this Court has recognized that “due process clearly guarantees that the defendant be allowed to be present ‘to the extent that a fair and just hearing would be thwarted by his absence.’” United States v. … Casseus, 282 F.3d 253, 256 (3d Cir. 2002) (any error in the failure of the district court to act on the defendants’ requests to appoint death-penalty qualified counsel was harmless where the requests were rendered moot by

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, National Capital Local Division 689, Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Amalgamated Transit Union, National Capital Local Division 689, Its Membersand Individually

531 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 25, 1976

The mass action principle establishes that a union can be held responsible for its members in proper circumstances, but does not revoke traditional defenses to a contempt adjudication. … In my opinion the record supports the court's conclusion; certainly that conclusion was not clearly erroneous. 37 At the hearing on the motion to show cause on May 3, 1974 the court heard the testimony of Mr.

Hawaii Government Employees Ass'n v. Martoche

915 F.2d 718 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 2, 1990

were filled by popular election. 103 “Plainly,” the Court said, “commissioners who are beholden to an elected public official for their appointment, and are subject to removal procedures applicable to all public officials, qualify … an entity is a political subdivision differed materially from the Secretary’s. 107 There the question was whether the Board had honored its own test; here the issue is whether the Secretary reached a factual conclusion clearly

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad

385 F.2d 581 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 12, 1967

The Award provided procedures whereby the carriers could mark firemen jobs for extinction, and also established a reciprocal power in the local BLFE chairman to immunize from elimination ten percent of the crews listed. … as procedures for establishing new work rules.

Mozilla Corporation v. FCC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 1, 2019

In re Establishment of a Funding Mechanism for Interstate Operator Servs. for the Deaf, 11 FCC Rcd. 6808, 6816–6817 ¶ 16 (1996) (“Operator Services Order”). Which services qualify as adjunct-to-basic? … But those purposive qualifiers are nowhere to be found in the statutory text.

Lewis v. Gov't of the D.C.

282 F. Supp. 3d 169 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 18, 2017

Code § 5-1402 (a) (establishing OCME as an executive agency under the Mayor). … The Complaint clearly alleges that both the alcohol and drug tests violate the ADA. See Am. Compl., ¶¶ 86-93.