Case law

Kimberlin, Brett v. DOJ

351 F.3d 1165 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 11, 2003

which by its nature or content poses a threat to the security, good order, or discipline of the institution, or facilitates criminal activity,’’ Thornburgh, 490 U.S. at 405 n.5, the Supreme Court found the second factor ‘‘clearly … government had defended the electronic-music ban as reasonably neces- sary to promote internal order, for example, or even to promote a more efficient allocation of prison resources, then the Zimmer Amendment would easily qualify

Ali Hamza Ahmad al Bahlul v. United States

792 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 2015

. § 950g, contains none of the limitations the dissent labors to establish. … Today, their withdrawal would have immunized them from the “postwithdrawal acts of [their] co-conspirators,” Smith v. United States, 133 S.

Sierra Club v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

867 F.3d 1357 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 2017

Cir. 2006) (citation omitted).  12 But at the same time, we are responsible for holding agencies to the standard the statute establishes. … Despite this clearly-controlling case law and the exclusive authority of the state Board to license the construction and expansion of power plants in Florida, the Court concludes FERC’s approval of the pipeline is a “legally

McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. United States Department of the Air Force

375 F.3d 1182 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 27, 2004

Applying National Parks and the appropriate standard of review, it is plain that the line-item prices at issue here do not qualify for protection from disclosure. … The Air Force’s rationale for permitting disclosure does not, however, rest only on McDonnell Douglas’ failure to establish that rebidding is likely to occur.

United States v. Dwight L. Chapin

515 F.2d 1274 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 14, 1975

As another court stated when faced with the charge that “met with” and “regular” were too vague, “mere vagueness or ambiguity in the questions is not enough to establish a defense to perjury. … The American Bar Association Standards on Fair Trial and Free Press state that proof of prejudice sufficient to require a change of venue may be made by “qualified public opinion surveys as well as other materials having

Public Utility Commission Of Texas v. Federal Communications Commission

886 F.2d 1325 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 1989

If a carrier's mere showing that some losses would be sustained from a decision to interconnect to another public switched network could qualify as public detriment, "then carriers would be able to prevent almost any customer … [T]he Commission clearly has authority to preempt inconsistent state common carrier regulation where, as in the case of network interconnection policies, it is not practical to separate the interstate and intrastate communications

Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. v. U. S. Environmental Protection Agency

655 F.2d 318 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 22, 1981

These provisions are supplemented and qualified by various specific provisions relating to particular classes of vehicles or pollutants. E.g., Act §§ 202(a)(3)(A)(i), 202(a)(3)(F), 202(b)(6)(A). … We cannot agree with the NRDC’s contention that the EPA’s determination that the effect was de minimis was “clearly erroneous,” Brief for Petitioner NRDC at 59 n.93 [hereinafter cited as NRDC Brief].

National Treasury Employees Union v. United States of America, National Treasury Employees Union v. United States of America, Peter G. Crane v. United States of America, National Treasury Employees Union v. United States of America, American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. United States of America, Peter G. Crane v. United States

990 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 21, 1993

Established Supreme Court doctrine on both questions depends on whether the facial attack rests on First Amendment free-speech grounds. … Quite clearly, appellees' facial challenge cannot succeed as a claim that the honorarium ban is unconstitutional in all of its possible applications.

Ralph Nader and Reuben B. Robertson, III v. Federal Communications Commission, and the United States of America, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, United States Independent Telephone Association, Air Transport Association of America, Telephone Users Association, Inc., and Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Intervenors. Microwave Communications, Inc. And MCI Telecommunications Corporation v. Federal Communications Commission, and the United States of America, American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Air Transport Association of America, Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and the American Broadcasting Companies, Inc., Intervenors

520 F.2d 182 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 29, 1975

Clearly, there is no explicit statutory prohibition against prescribing a rate of return. … The consumer interest thus clearly involved is a basic interest entitled to protection by the Commission, qualified as it is by the need for a rate of return which enables the regulated utility "to operate successfully, to

Nelson v. United States (Two Cases). Nowland v. United States (Two Cases). Lee v. United States. Lowery v. United States. Kirby v. United States. MacWilliams v. United States. (Two Cases). Trent v. United States. Brady v. United States

208 F.2d 505 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 12, 1953

Clearly the Government thought not. It did not mention the subject in this court, but undertook to meet Nelson's constitutional contentions on their merits. … There was more than ample other evidence to establish Nelson's guilt; evidence of employees, participants in the numbers game, etc.

Proffitt, Billy v. FDIC

208 F.3d 1066 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 21, 2000

until the Bank "has suffered financial loss" (establishing actuality). … (Indeed, it seems that the "culpability prong" could only be established by reference to the time of a wrongdoer's misconduct.)

American Airways Charters, Inc. v. Donald Regan, Secretary of the Treasury

746 F.2d 865 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 23, 1984

The delegation of such broad corporate authority is clearly ultra vires even a legal corporate president. … As the Supreme Court recently noted, "Matters relating 'to the conduct of foreign relations ... are so exclusively entrusted to the political branches of government as to be largely immune from judicial inquiry or interference

Coalition for Responsible Reg v. EPA

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 20, 2012

Here, Congress spoke clearly, EPA fulfilled its statutory responsibilities, and the panel, playing its limited role, gave effect to the statute’s plain meaning. See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. … To put matters pointedly: the injury sufficient to establish standing need not suffice to establish endangerment as well.

UC Health v. National Labor Relations Board

803 F.3d 669 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 18, 2015

(explaining that the statutory text “clearly require[d]” one result); id. (“Congress provided unequivocally” that the Board’s interpretation was  15 at 473. … It is not always easy, however, to determine when a prior case qualifies as controlling precedent. See Jeremy Waldron, Stare Decisis and  2 the Rule of Law: A Layered Approach, 111 MICH.

Merrick v. American Security & Trust Co.

107 F.2d 271 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 9, 1939

Normally an executor settles an estate within a limited time after he qualifies, but a trustee is frequently occupied with a trust for many years. … And clearly the choice of a criterion must be made from the standpoint of public protection, not from that of private advantage for either trust companies or lawyers.

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, by Milton J. Shapp, Its Governor v. Thomas S. Kleppe, as Administrator of the Small Business Administration

533 F.2d 668 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 3, 1976

Any answer to the question whether a state may sue on behalf of its citizens must be qualified by statement of the type and extent of the interests to be represented, and of the defendants against whom the action is brought … This generalized principle clearly does not bar analysis of the factors we have considered; the interest offended, the character of the injury, see Warth v.

City of Los Angeles and City of New York v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors. Center for Auto Safety v. Diane K. Steed, Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors. People of the State of California v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors. Natural Resources Defense Council v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Automobile Importers of America, Inc., Ford Motor Company, the City of New York, General Motors Corporation, Intervenors. Center for Auto Safety and Public Citizen v. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration

912 F.2d 478 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 24, 1990

Finally, the environmental injury-in-fact of which the polities complain is clearly within the zone of interests that the Congress intended to regulate in enacting the NEPA. … Clearly, NRDC has done more than shout "global warming."

Federal Trade Commission v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation v. Michael Pertschuk Federal Trade Commission v. Owens-Corning Fiberglas Corporation

626 F.2d 966 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 13, 1980

The Court cautioned against judicial second-guessing of an agency's "procedural rule, establishing a presumption in favor of public proceedings . . . ." Id. at 293 , 85 S.Ct. at 1469 . … Requiring notice at the receipt of a request for access seems clearly necessary if the trade secret owners are to have any opportunity to plead their case at the FTC level about what is to be released under what conditions

United States v. Maurice H. Rosenbloom

511 F.2d 777 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 1, 1975

This statement in its context clearly indicated he would like to be tried quickly. The second time was October 21, 1971, at a hearing to reset the trial date, fourteen months after arrest. … The majority opinion properly applied the standards established for cases of this sort by Barker v.

American Corn Growers Association v. Environmental Protection Agency, State of Michigan, Department of Environmental Quality, Intervenors

291 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 24, 2002

Rule's requirements for improvement in visibility during the 20 percent most impaired days and for no degradation during the 20 percent least impaired days, 40 C.F.R. § 51.308 (d)(1); see also 64 Fed.Reg. at 35,734, do not qualify … Donovan, 452 U.S. 490, 510 , 101 S.Ct. 2478, 2491 , 69 L.Ed.2d 185 (1981) ("When Congress has intended that an agency engage in cost-benefit analysis, it has clearly indicated such intent on the face of the statute."); Central