Case law

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

543 F.2d 247 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 1976

Clearly, in its orders — especially in the two orders which tell carriers exactly what the Board “expects” them to do 87 — the Board was attempting to determine and prescribe the rules and regulations applicable to hazardous … The CAB did, of course, qualify this observation with the following footnote: Such tariffs are, of course, subject to Board scrutiny on its own initiative or in response to complaints by third parties, and such scrutiny may

Democratic Central Committee of the District of Columbia v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Commission, D. C. Transit System, Inc., Intervenor

485 F.2d 786 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 25, 1973

After Transit’s acquisition from Capital, the properties now questioned remained in operating status for various periods, and indeed two apparently always so remained. 272 In that status they have possessed incidents and immunities … PUC’s utilization of the acquisition adjustment account, see text supra at notes 251-256, in no way qualifies this characterization.

United States Air Tour Ass'n v. Federal Aviation Administration

298 F.3d 997 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 16, 2002

Grand Canyon I also observed that the Overflights Act "clearly divides the institutional responsibilities between" the FAA and the Park Service. Id. at 468. … Council, 490 U.S. 360, 378 (1989) ("When specialists express conflicting views, an agency must have discretion to rely on the reasonable opinions of its own qualified experts.").

State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of the Department of Transportation, American Insurance Association v. Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of the Department of Transportation the Department of Transportation Diane Steed, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Nationwide Mutual Insurance Company v. Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of the Department of Transportation the Department of Transportation Diane Steed, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, National Association of Insurance Commissioners v. Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of the Department of Transportation the Department of Transportation Diane Steed, Administrator of the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration and the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, the State of New York, Robert Abrams, Attorney General of the State of New York, James P. Corcoran, Superintendent of Insurance of the State of New York and the New York State Department of Insurance v. Elizabeth Dole, Secretary of the Department of Transportation

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

Obviously, if more than twenty percent of the public will not use detachable belts, the safety factor is clearly in favor of the non-detachable option. … Primary conduct was clearly being affected.

Animal Leg Def Fund v. Glickman, Daniel

204 F.3d 229 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 9, 1997

First, an organi- zation may have standing on its own behalf when its rights and immunities as an entity have suffered recognizable inju- ry, redressable in the action at bar. … First, his allegations solidly establish injury in fact.

Morall v. Drug Enforcement Administration

412 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 24, 2005

Morall “appeared to regret her past conduct and ... is unlikely to repeat it,” a finding that clearly implicates credibility. See ALJ Decision at 20. … Mo-rall’s favor, because “[t]he record does not establish that [Dr.

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.

Cellular Mobile Systems of Illinois, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Rogers Radiocall, Inc., Intervenor

782 F.2d 214 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 10, 1986

CMS, in contrast, was criticized for failing clearly to state its operating assumptions and to explain its methodology. … be qualified to operate a cellular system.

Recording Industry Ass'n of America v. Copyright Royalty Tribunal

662 F.2d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 1981

substantial discretion to determine policy within the framework of the statute, and that the Tribunal’s choices in this area are entitled to deference. 28 The copyright owners argue, however, that the legislative history clearly … issue, merely expressing its approval of a rate increase to 2}/i cents, and observing that “the publishers and composers will have the opportunity to present their case to the Copyright Royalty Tribunal, an expert body qualified

National Wildlife Federation v. Gorsuch

693 F.2d 156 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 5, 1982

Significantly, the Senate’s commitment to a zero-discharge policy, qualified though it was, was not fully shared by the House. … And EPA admits that “sediment” is a pollutant, although not clearly listed.

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.

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.

In Re Adele Halkin

598 F.2d 176 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 31, 1979

The majority finds that respondents’ showing was insufficient — indeed, that it was so deficient that the District Court clearly abused its discretion in acting upon it. … First, what kind of showing were respondents required to make to establish “good cause” under Rule 26(c)? Second, was the showing actually made by respondents adequate? A.

Family Service Agency San Francisco v. National Labor Relations Board, Service Employees International Union, Local 790, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

163 F.3d 1369 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 1999

(“important in counseling deference to Board decisions ... is the fact that the Board’s particular expertise qualifies it — rather than the courts — to decide whether to call for a rerun election”). … Although the statement stood alone and did not comprise a core campaign issue, the court found it to be so inflammatory that the “Union clearly could not have met” its burden of proving it was actually relevant.

Damien Guedes v. ATF

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

The Congress must, for instance, “speak clearly if it wishes to assign to an agency decisions of vast economic and political significance.” Util. Air Regulatory Grp. v. … If the focus is—as it must be—on the trigger, a bump stock does not qualify as a “machinegun.”

Energy Action Educational Foundation v. Cecil D. Andrus, Secretary of the Interior (Two Cases)

631 F.2d 751 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 20, 1979

Interior. 18 9 On June 25, 1979, four days prior to the scheduled opening of bids on Lease Sale 48, appellants filed a motion for a preliminary injunction seeking to prevent further lease sales "in the absence of regulations establishing … The Act clearly envisioned prompt experimentation with a variety of methods of leasing to see which would best operate in practice to meet all three goals. 43 U.S.C. § 1337 (a)(1).

David A. Clarke v. United States

915 F.2d 699 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 2, 1990

I can see little principled difference between a federal statute that conditions funding on a State's enactment of legislation qualifying it to participate in a federal program and one that specifies the language that the … Dole, 483 U.S. 203, 211 , 107 S.Ct. 2793, 2798-99 , 97 L.Ed.2d 171 (1987) (citation omitted). 53 Here, the "financial inducement" offered by the Armstrong Amendment was clearly coercive.

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, Winfield Manufacturing Company, Inc., Intervenor. Winfield Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers Ofamerica, Intervenor

424 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 2, 1970

-- clearly reflected the Company's hostility to the Union and the Union's efforts to organize the employees. … The company did not 'clearly demonstrate that factual issues exist which can only be resolved by an evidentiary hearing.'

Usair, Inc. v. Department of Transportation, American Airlines, Inc., Georgia and Atlanta Parties, Delta Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. County of Allegheny, Pennsylvania, and Greater Pittsburgh International Airport v. Department of Transportation, American Airlines, Inc., Georgia and Atlanta Parties, Delta Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors

969 F.2d 1256 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 1992

. § 1371(c), establishes rather strict time limits for DOT action in carrier selection cases. See Continental Airlines, Inc. v. DOT, 856 F.2d 209 , 216 (D.C.Cir.1988). … He was clearly influenced by the Remand Order, but he did not suggest that he was obligated to reach that conclusion; he could legally have reaffirmed the [ 297 U.S.App.D.C. 262 ] selection of USAir after providing a more

United States v. New York, New Haven & Hartford Railroad

276 F.2d 525 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 2, 1959

Clearly appellees’ shares have been changed under the highly practical tests ©f the marketplace. … For the very section here discussed also contained the provision granting immunity from prosecution for any matter concerning which a person might testify or produce evidence “in any proceeding, suit, or prosecution under