Case law

Taiwo Okusami, M.D. v. Psychiatric Institute of Washington, Inc.

959 F.2d 1062 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 1992

It is clear, however, that you misunderstand my request which by the way was clearly stated in another letter to you, dated Sept. 6, 1988. I am NOT asking to reapply. … All recommendations to appoint must also specifically recommend the clinical privileges to be granted which may, where appropriate, be qualified by probationary conditions.

J. Edward Day v. William H. Avery

548 F.2d 1018 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 25, 1977

policy,” except for certain enumerated matters not here relevant, shall be decided by the executive committee, which “shall advise and consult with other Partners to such an extent as the Committee may deem advisable.” 27 Clearly … Spear, Leeds & Kellogg, 306 F.Supp. 743 (S.D.N.Y.1969), asserting that the majority rule is not that compensatory damages must actually be awarded, but that compensable injury must be shown, in order to qualify for an award

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

561 F.2d 293 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 1977

qualify as a major action under the new rules, if adopted. … The precise facts in Northeast are a bit murky, but the basic point is clearly the same.

Competitive Enterprise Institute v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors. Competitive Enterprise Institute and Consumer Alert v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, General Motors Corporation, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, the City of New York, Intervenors

901 F.2d 107 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 19, 1990

("Intervenors") claim that Consumer Alert's allegations do not establish a "distinct and palpable" injury. Brief for Intervenors at 22. … If that is a requirement for standing under EPCA--as I believe it is notwithstanding contrary circuit law, which has been thrown into doubt by an intervening Supreme Court decision--then petitioner is qualified on that ground

Nugent v. Beale

1 Hay. & Haz. 287 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 11, 1848

R., 296, after saying ‘ this is a proceeding of one branch of the legislature, and, therefore, we cannot inquire into it,’ immediately qualifies the generality of that remark, by adding, ‘ I do not say that cases may not … These rules were established under the power given to the Senate by the Constitution of the United States, Art.

United States v. William A. Raper, United States of America v. Eli B. Childs, Jr.

676 F.2d 841 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 30, 1982

Brown qualified as an expert witness for the government on D.C. narcotics transactions. … Therefore actual or constructive possession is not required in “drug-possession offenses” when the normal elements of the aiding and abetting statute are satisfied. 1 *852 In the instant case, then, the jury were clearly

James J. Dozier v. Ford Motor Company

702 F.2d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 18, 1983

It does not qualify. … Indeed, Ford does not dispute that Dozier has established complete diversity. Equally clearly, there is nothing to be cured in Dozier's allegation of punitive damages.

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, Switchmen's Union of North America v. The Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Company, Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen v. The Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Company, the Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen, the Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Company v. Order of Railway Conductors and Brakemen, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. The Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Bangor and Aroostook Railroad Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. The Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad Company, (Two Cases)

385 F.2d 581 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 16, 1968

Clearly a proposal that cannot lawfully be adopted is non-bargainable. 49 Since the union could not bargain away any part of the rights that accrued to employees under the Award, it could not compel the railroads to bargain … 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.

Business Roundtable v. Securities & Exchange Commission

647 F.3d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 22, 2011

In any event, the final estimated frequency (51) with which shareholders will use Rule 14a-11 does not clearly conflict with the higher estimate in the Proposing Release (269), or the estimate of proposals under Rule 14a- … See id. at 56,761/1 (anticipating “beneficial effects” * The Commission simultaneously amended Rule 14a-8 to prevent companies from excluding from their proxy materials shareholder proposals to establish a procedure for

Cintas Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

482 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 16, 2007

NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 491 (1978) (“[T]he right of employees to self-organize and bargain collectively established by § 7 of the NLRA, 29 U.S.C. § 157, necessarily encompasses the right effectively to communicate with one another … Thus, both rules share broad facial restrictions on information disclosure—although Cintas’s restriction is broader—qualified by some reference to business interests.

L. B. Wilson, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

170 F.2d 793 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 12, 1948

application would cause electrical interference to an existing station . . . within its normally protected contour as prescribed by the applicable Rules and Regulations, the petition must be accompanied by an affidavit of a qualified … "that conditions of radio wave propagation permit operation on such clear channels by stations denominated as Class II, under conditions which do not allow objectionable interference (i. e. within the protected contours established

King Soopers, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

859 F.3d 23 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 2017

The ALJ clearly explained her decisions to credit and discredit the testimony of various witnesses. … As the Board explained, the General Counsel continues to bear the burden of establishing that an employee’s search-for-work and work-related expenses are reasonable. Id. at 8.

K. Lewis v. PBGC [REISSUED OPINION]

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 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).

Richard G. Aird, Beverly C. Moore, Jr., Appellants/cross-Appellees, Landon G. Dowdey v. Ford Motor Company, Appellee/cross-Appellant

86 F.3d 216 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 12, 1996

In the *219 spring of 1986, the special master established a schedule for discovery. Shortly thereafter, the plaintiffs suffered two major reversals. … Fed.R.CivP. 53(e) (“[T]he court shall accept the master’s findings of fact unless clearly erroneous.”).

Abdulsalam Ali Al-Hela v. Joseph Biden (REISSUED)

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 12, 2023

Eisentrager, 339 U.S. 763 (1950), clearly established that the Constitution does not extend to foreign citizens outside the sovereign territory of the United States, Rao Op. 1, see Randolph Op. 6, a clarity that seems to … For starters, the one location that undoubtedly qualifies as a de facto U.S. territory is Guantanamo, where the United States continues to hold Mr. al Hela. See Boumediene, 553 U.S. at 755, 764-65, 770-71.

United States v. Western Electric Co.

900 F.2d 283 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 3, 1990

that the BOCs could impede competition by way of illegal (and perhaps criminal) collusion to divide markets among them according to territory, see 673 F.Supp. at 558 , would, in the absence of supporting evidence, seem to qualify … "Exchange areas” are geographic areas of jurisdiction established by the BOCs according to criteria set out in the decree.

Eddie M. Harrison v. United States of America, Orson G. White v. United States

387 F.2d 203 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 1967

Brown had money, and that this fact was known is also clearly suggested. Harrison knew that Brown was a “fence” and had previously dealt with him in that capacity. … proceedings against him,” 39 including “the giving of effective aid in the preparation and trial of the case.” 40 It is clear that these demands are not satisfied when the accused is “represented” by a layman masquerading as a qualified

Carolyn Weaver v. United States Information Agency

87 F.3d 1429 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 9, 1996

Indeed, when Weaver was admonished for failure to comply with agency regulations, the VOA cited not only her violation of the FAM regulation, but her violation of the directive. 7 76 Until today, I thought it clearly established … But Weaver has signalled reasonably clearly that she has no objection to taking such risks.

Western Resources, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Indiana Gas Company Michigan Consolidated Gas Company Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company Municipal Gas Commission of Missouri Northern Indiana Public Service Company Citizens Gas & Coke Utility Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Oxy USA Inc., Intervenors. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Indiana Gas Company Michigan Consolidated Gas Company Western Resources, Inc. Municipal Gas Commission of Missouri Oxy USA Inc. Midland Cogeneration Venture Limited Partnership Citizens Gas & Coke Utility Anadarko Petroleum Corporation Northern Indiana Public Service Company Colorado Interstate Gas Company Providence Gas Company, Intervenors

9 F.3d 1568 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 1993

When the rate imposed by the Commission differs significantly from that proposed by the pipeline, it can no longer be attributed to the pipeline--at least without the pipeline's consent--so as to qualify for § 4 treatment … We reject this argument, because the Commission, not the other two parties, bore the burden of establishing that its rate was just and reasonable.

District 65, Distributive Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, Hartz Mountain Corporation, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. The Hartz Mountain Corporation, District 65, Distributive Workers of America, Intervenor

593 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 26, 1978

It is not necessary, however, that this impact be established with mathematical certainty. … The judge credited testimony from the 46 dischargees to establish discriminatory intent.