Case law

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.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Surface Transportation Board

628 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 2010

USM filed a rate challenge with the Board in May 2009, opting to use the Three Benchmark framework established in Simplified Standards. … Both sides stood firmly behind their initial, clearly skewed offers, apparently hoping that the other side’s proposal would be rejected as even more extreme.  18 Indeed, “[t]he parties seem

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.

Wannall v. Honeywell International, Inc.

292 F.R.D. 26 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 14, 2013

Markowitz’s use of that phrase clearly refers to the multiple exposures that he listed in the previous sentence, which included the decedent’s exposures to asbestos in the Navy and at Fort Belvoir. … All that this analogy demonstrates is that a sufficient cause also necessarily qualifies as a substantial contributing factor.

United States v. Ahmed Abukhatallah

41 F.4th 608 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 26, 2022

Finally, the conspiracy was to destroy the Mission, so the assault on the Mission was clearly in furtherance of the conspiracy. … If clearly wrongful comments were self-evidently prejudicial, our separate tests for substantial prejudice and prosecutorial misconduct would collapse into one.

United States v. Gurr, Bernard

471 F.3d 144 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 8, 2006

Moreover, the documents seized from Gurr’s luggage were clearly identifiable as relevant. … Gurr contends that this is insufficient to establish the allegation in the indictment because there was no evidence of cooperation between Gurr and the other credit union employee and no evidence that the witness was intimidated

Milk Train Inc v. Veneman, Ann M.

310 F.3d 747 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 2002

Choosing between those options clearly requires "a complicated balancing of a number of factors which are peculiarly within [the Secre- tary's] expertise." … Chaney, 470 U.S. 821 (1985), among many other cases, establishes the proposition that courts are not to substitute their administrative judgments for those of the agency.

William B. Blount v. Securities and Exchange Commission, Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board, Intervenor

61 F.3d 938 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 1995

But the Supreme Court does not regard a rule’s use of subject-based categories as automatically establishing it as content-based. … The SEC clearly rested its approval of Rule G-37 on a wish to curtail this latter function.

Rojas-Vega v. U.S. Immigration & Customs Enforcement

302 F. Supp. 3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 26, 2018

Exemptions 6 and 7(C) Exemption 6 protects "personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal *310 privacy." 5 U.S.C. § 552 (b)(6). … Any information that "applies to a particular individual" qualifies for consideration under this exemption. U.S. Dep't of State v. Washington Post Co. , 456 U.S. 595 , 602, 102 S.Ct. 1957 , 72 L.Ed.2d 358 (1982).

Lewis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

901 F.3d 406 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 21, 2018

This seems to conflict with the second, italicized half of § 1344(c), which clearly assigns all post-termination gains and losses to the Corporation. See Kinek v. … In addition, ERISA repeatedly qualifies the fiduciary status of post-termination trustees “to the extent that the provisions of [Title IV] are inconsistent” with fiduciary requirements. Id. § 1342(d)(3).

United States v. Conrad S. Dancy, (Two Cases)

510 F.2d 779 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 2, 1975

The trial judges in Norcome and Tillman clearly perceived the problems as extending considerably beyond the particular cases before them. … impermissible where the material was not lodged, submitted or suggested by any party, and is indeed used to introduce a claim not made by a party; where we gave no opportunity to the Government to comment, contradict or qualify

American Federation of Labor & Congress of Industrial Organizations v. Chao

409 F.3d 377 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 2005

This includes trusts established by one or more unions with union members’ funds because such establishment is a reasonable indicium of union control of that trust. … She has clearly done so here. See supra pp. 2–3.

Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States

767 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 14, 2014

No. 109-366, 120 Stat. 2600, to authorize the establishment of law-of-war military commissions and to establish procedures governing their use. … Bahlul’s jury trial, equal protection, and freedom of speech challenges are clearly meritless.

Braniff Master Executive Council of the Air Line Pilots Association International v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Intervenor

693 F.2d 220 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 10, 1983

Chairman McKinnon was told of Borman’s remark at the closed meeting and responded that “[i]t says that very clearly right in here [Eastern’s submission to the Board].” Id. … A “qualifying dislocation” is a bankruptcy or major contraction of a certified air carrier, the major cause of which is airline deregulation. 49 U.S.C. § 1552 (h)(2).

Michael Friedman v. Kathleen Sebelius

686 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 27, 2012

The court argues that a statute rife with such intellectual exercises is not very likely to have clearly limited the Secretary to “generic fraud” for the fraud aspect of § 1320-7(b)(1)(A). … “Misdemeanor” and “fraud” have well-established meanings. The Secretary need only prescribe some specific meaning for the word “related.”

American Iron & Steel Institute v. Occupational Safety & Health Administration

939 F.2d 975 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 19, 1991

Employers qualifying for this exemption are still required, however, to use engineering and work practice controls to reduce exposures below 200 ftg/m3. … Finally, the industry criticizes OSHA’s use of the geometric mean to establish technological feasibility.

United States v. Leon James, United States of America v. Enrico Tantillo, United States of America v. Robert Verderosa, United States of America v. Lawrence W. Jackson, United States of America v. Carl W. Brooks

494 F.2d 1007 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 15, 1974

The record clearly fixed responsibility for the authorizations upon the Attorney General and thus fulfilled the purpose of 18 U.S.C. 2518(1)(a). 4 32 III. … Even assuming that the Caputo identification in Devine's presence was suggestive, there was clearly an independent basis for Devine's in-court identification of the voices.

Kerr-McGee Coal Corp. v. Federal Mine Safety & Health Review Commission

40 F.3d 1257 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

The UMWA cannot qualify as a miners’ representative at the Jacobs Ranch Mine, Kerr-McGee maintains, because the Act and its legislative history contemplate direct involvement by miners, not unions, and the UMWA would use … The new documents establish, at most, that the UMWA plans to use its miners' representative status to gain credibility among miners in the Powder River Basin and thus further its organizational goals.

Kaspersky Lab, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of Homeland Sec.

311 F. Supp. 3d 187 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 30, 2018

More importantly, all three opinions are clearly distinguishable. … The next two tests clearly weigh against them. b.

Williams v. Martinez

586 F.3d 995 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 13, 2009

As explained above, a motion to recall the mandate does not qualify as a motion pursuant to section 23-110. … While it is true the statute’s plain words may be read to justify the court’s holding, the result is clearly at odds with the statute’s purpose.