Case law

International Fabricare Institute v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

972 F.2d 384 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 4, 1992

Clearly, then, they have standing to bring their challenges. 18 Additionally, IFI has met the standing requirements by showing that it or its members will likely face greater liability under the Comprehensive Environmental … The "new scientific evidence" petitioners point to, see Brief for Petitioners at 31, boils down to the opinions of a few scientists who, however qualified, are in their own words at odds with what is "generally thought" about

Gordon Reid v. Hugh J. Hurwitz

920 F.3d 828 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 5, 2019

The short durations of Reid’s SHU placements clearly meet the threshold. … Given the narrow, qualified nature of these regulatory privileges, a large number of deprivations does not plausibly suggest illegal nationwide policies.

Industrial Union Department v. Bingham

570 F.2d 965 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 17, 1977

Such a petition cannot qualify as “first instituted” within the meaning of 28 U.S.C. § 2112 (a), as that section is designed to solve forum disputes as between courts having jurisdiction over the order. 8 *66 Whether the … Although this provision does not specify when a standard is “issued,” the face of it clearly indicates a legislative intent to establish a definite time frame within which a defined class, “[a]ny person who may be adversely

Philip Agee v. Edmund S. Muskie, Secretary of State

629 F.2d 80 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 5, 1980

On the basis of these facts, the following discussion will establish that Zemel v. Rusk and Kent v. … Section 1732 clearly contemplated such a function.

Humane Society of the United States v. Ryan Zinke (Lead)

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2017

Indiana, Illinois, Ohio, and Iowa, “do not  48 contain suitable habitat [for gray wolves] or currently established packs[.]” Id. … Cir. 2002) (“Normally when an Agency * * * clearly violates the APA we would vacate its action[.]”).

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. Environmental Protection Agency

283 F.3d 355 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 26, 2002

EPA therefore decided simply to establish secondary PM2.5 NAAQS identical to the new primary NAAQS, and to establish a regional haze program under Clean Air Act section 169A, 42 U.S.C. § 7491 , to improve visibility in those … According to EPA, however, new studies clearly “demonstrate[ ] associations between a wide range of health effects and prolonged (...

United States Ex Rel. United States Borax Co. v. Ickes

98 F.2d 271 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 27, 1938

Chrisman, as decided in the Supreme Court of California, was .referred to as a state court decision clearly adverse to the doctrine of the H. H. Yard Case, and Chrisman v. … This, as well as every other thing relating to the acquisition and continued possession of a mining claim, was determined by rules and regulations established by miners themselves.

Joseph Amatel v. Janet Reno, Attorney General of the United States

156 F.3d 192 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

These cases illustrate that the standard of review established by Safley sets some limits on the means the government may use to further penological interests. … There is, of course, much material that features nudity or depicts sexual activity that would not qualify as pornography under any definition, including many highly regarded works of art. .

NE MD Wst Disposal v. EPA

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 24, 2004

reverse any such action found to be — (A) arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law; (B) contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege, or immunity … See Appa- lachian Power Co., 135 F.3d at 816 (finding that a rule was a logical outgrowth where commenters ‘‘clearly understood’’ that a matter was under consideration, since ‘‘the agency received comments on [the matter]

Occidental Petroleum Corporation v. Securities and Exchange Commission

873 F.2d 325 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 21, 1989

The court is clearly correct in this. … No such cavalier attitude toward valuable intellectual property can be squared with the terms of Exemption (4), which qualifies, to the extent necessary to protect commercial information, the general FOIA norm of citizen

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency, Ciba-Geigy Corporation, Intervenor. Florida Citrus Mutual v. Douglas M. Costle, Administrator, Environmental Protection Agency

631 F.2d 922 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 1980

This being the case, we conclude that the proceedings before the agency sufficiently meet the concerns of Congress animating section 16(b) to qualify as a public hearing. 5. … Because EDF was not adversely affected by cancellation and restrictions of chlorobenzilate uses, as to that portion of the notice EDF clearly neither has nor claims a right to a hearing. B. Noncancellation 62 1.

Boehner, John A. v. McDermott, James A.

191 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 24, 1999

One line, clearly drawn in this case, is the line between conduct and speech. When a newspaper publishes, it engages in speech. … It is established Supreme Court law that when the state "establishes a financial disincentive to ... publish works with a particular content ...

Public Service Commission v. Federal Power Commission

543 F.2d 757 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 1974

Once made, the decision remains the decision of the body, immune from alteration save by another collective effort of that body. … of a permanent certificate is a finding by the Commission that the sale “is or will be required by the present or future public convenience or necessity,” id. § 7(e), 15 U.S.C. § 717f (e) (1970), and the Commission may qualify

United States v. Carson, Samuel

455 F.3d 336 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 21, 2006

Thus, they do not of themselves establish judicial bias. … The district court did not clearly err in drawing such an inference here.

United States v. Jean D. Dockery

447 F.2d 1178 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 1971

For them, the sentencing hearing is clearly a “new” proceeding considering “new” facts. … Rather, they establish a range of punishments, specifying no particular penalty within the range. Similarly, a finding of guilt in no way includes a decision that the maximum sentence should be imposed.

Mohamed Al-Saffy v. Thomas Vilsack

827 F.3d 85 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 1, 2016

Nor did the order qualify as a decision under Section 1614.109(i). That subsection requires a substantive “decision on the complaint”—one that “order[s] appropriate remedies and relief where discrimination is found.” … without notice from the agency or the administrative judge regarding the claimant’s right to appeal to the EEOC or file a civil action and the applicable time limits would be contrary to the purpose of the regulation, which clearly

Association Of American Railroads v. Surface Transportation Board

162 F.3d 101 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 11, 1998

The issue of just who qualified as an "employee affected" so as to merit "severance pay" was never directly confronted. 30 The panel's restrictive definition of the term "severance pay" had never been employed as a term of … I fear that the court departs from that unassailable reasoning in Part III. 38 Just as Congress clearly capped the required payments under § 10902(d) at "one year of severance pay," Congress also clearly defined the method

United States v. Charles McNeil

434 F.2d 502 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 28, 1970

On any remand hearing the opinion of a qualified psychologist is competent and admissible, Jenkins v. United States, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 300 , 307 F.2d 637 (1962) (en banc). … Elizabeths. 121 (Appellant's counsel): Your Honor, I am not sure he would make that distinction so clearly. 122 The Court: That could be. If I am wrong, the Court of Appeals can turn him loose.

John Doe v. Fed. Election Comm'n

920 F.3d 866 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 12, 2019

Information relating to business judgments and relationships does not qualify for exemption. See Id. at 575. This is so even if disclosure might tarnish someone’s professional reputation. See Cohen v. EPA, 575 F. … statute clearly controls”). As a result, the Commission cannot use a regulation or policy statement to contravene the plain limits that FECA sets on its disclosure authority.

Lani Moore v. District of Columbia

886 F.2d 335 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 24, 1989

See, e.g., § 1412 (“to qualify for assistance under this subchap-ter”), § 1413(a) (“the eligibility requirements set forth in section 1412 of this title”), § 1413(a)(9) (“Federal funds made available under this subchapter … The Court’s decision in Gaslight further established the right under title VII to sue solely to obtain an award of attorney’s fees for legal work done in State and. local proceedings.