Case law

National Treasury Employees Union v. United States

990 F.2d 1271 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 30, 1993

Quite clearly, appellees’ facial challenge cannot succeed ás a claim that the honorarium ban is unconstitutional in all of its possible applications. … No. 93-443, § 101 (f)(1), 88 Stat. 1268 (1974) (establishing $1,000 cap on honoraria for each covered activity and $15,000 annual cap, both exclusive of actual travel and subsistence expense reimbursement); Pub.L.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Washington Terminal Company

473 F.2d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 26, 1973

The District Court concluded that the Electricians were unlikely to be able to establish the validity of that legal premise in a trial on the merits, because while the assignment of incidental electrical work to the Carmen … In this respect, the Court finds that the National Railroad Adjustment Board would be particularly qualified to handle a dispute of the type involved herein. 3.

United States v. Robert S. Wylie, A/K/A Bobby S. Wylie

569 F.2d 62 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 27, 1978

We hold, on the basis of the general principles established in Terry v. … And the officer's extrapolation from a blue slip to a check thence to a pay check 112 hardly qualifies as a gem of deduction.

Calvin L. Ricks v. United States

334 F.2d 964 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 1964

The Rule clearly contemplates the presence of counsel for all parties at the deposition. … "I would ask that when you hear the evidence, bear this defense in mind, that this is one of the things that we will establish. "Thank you very much."

Wisconsin Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Anr Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Great Lakes Gas Transmission Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Transwestern Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Midwestern Gas Transmission Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Tennessee Gas Pipeline Company, a Division of Tenneco Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. City Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Madison Gas & Electric Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Wisconsin Power & Light Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Wisconsin Natural Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Wisconsin Power & Light Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Wisconsin Public Service Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Panhandle Eastern Pipe Line Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Gas Utilities Company, Intervenors. Trunkline Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Gas Utilities Company, Intervenors. Migc, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Michigan Consolidated Gas Company, Intervenors. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, a Division of Arkla, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., Intervenors. Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., Intervenors. Algonquin Gas Transmission Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., Intervenors. Texas Gas Transmission Corporation v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Consumers Power Company, Intervenors. Pacific Interstate Offshore Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Consumers Power Company, Intervenors. Cascade Natural Gas Corporation, Northwest Natural Gas Company, Washington Natural Gas Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Consumers Power Company, Intervenors. Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, a Division of Arkla, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pacific Gas and Electric Company, Intervenors. Transwestern Pipeline Company v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Pan-Alberta Gas Ltd., Intervenors. Migc, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Arkansas Louisiana Gas Company, a Division of Arkla, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission

770 F.2d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 20, 1985

Had the parties intended to immunize Transco's minimum bill from the general impact of an industry-wide rulemaking, they could have easily so provided in the terms of the agreement. … Sec. 7173 (c) (1982): "Any function ... which relates to the establishment of rates and charges under the ... Natural Gas Act ..., may be conducted by rulemaking procedures."

Coffeyville Resources Refining & Marketing, LLC v. EPA

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 30, 2019

The 2017 Rule establishes: (1) the applicable volume for biomass-based diesel for 2018, 81 Fed. … We recognize that, as a textual matter, the statutory phrase “but within the time specified for review” qualifies the requirement that the grounds must have arisen “after the period for public comment,” but not the alternative

National Treasury Employees Union v. United States Merit Systems Protection Board and United States Office of Personnel Management

743 F.2d 895 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 11, 1984

. § 752.401 (c)(10) excludes “[placement of an employee serving on an intermittent, part-time, or seasonal basis in a nonduty, nonpay status in accordance with conditions established at the time of appointment” from the adverse … The workers’ interests in having access to the adverse action procedures of the CSRA are clearly within the “zone of interests” to be protected by the Act.

Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc. v. Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, and United States of America, Williams Pipe Line Company, Association of Oil Pipelines, Getty Pipeline, Inc., Marathon Pipe Line Company, Phillips Pipe Line Company, Sun Pipe Line Company, Mid-America Pipeline Company, Texas Eastern Transmission Corporation, Arco Pipe Line Company, Intervenors. Association of Oil Pipe Lines and Williams Pipe Line Company v. United States of America and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Marathon Pipe Line Company, Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., Mid-America Pipeline Company, Buckeye Pipe Line Company, Texas Eastern Transmission Corp., Hydrocarbon Transportation, Inc., Belle Fourche Pipe Line Company, Getty Pipeline, Inc., Sun Pipe Line Company, Arco Pipe Line Company, Intervenors. Phillips Pipe Line Company v. United States of America and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., Getty Pipeline, Inc., Sun Pipe Line Company, Mid-America Pipeline Company, Arco Pipe Line Company, Intervenors. Sun Pipe Line Company v. United States of America and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., Getty Pipeline, Inc., Sun Pipe Line Company, Mid-America Pipeline Company, Arco Pipe Line Company, Intervenors. Arco Pipe Line Company v. United States of America and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., Belle Fourche Pipe Line Co., Getty Pipeline, Inc., Sun Pipe Line Company, Mid-America Pipeline Company, Intervenors. Mid-America Pipeline Company v. United States of America and Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, Farmers Union Central Exchange, Inc., Belle Fourche Pipe Line Co., Getty Pipeline, Inc., Sun Pipe Line Company, Intervenors

734 F.2d 1486 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 1984

First, FERC sought to establish maximum rate ceilings at a level far above the "zone of reasonableness" required by the statute. … While FERC made assurances in Williams that patently discriminatory tactics will not be immunized from searching regulatory scrutiny, the FERC's systemwide approach would apparently tolerate substantial variance in allowable

Entergy Services, Inc. v. FERC

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 2021

Under the protocol established by these provisions, the lowest-cost energy on the System was allocated to the “loads” of the Entergy System member which produced that energy. … We agree with FERC that the term “loads” in section 30.03 is ambiguous—it does not clearly include or exclude opportunity sales. The System Agreement itself never defines “loads.”

Cable Vision System Corp. v. Federal Communications Commission

597 F.3d 1306 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 13, 2010

These data qualify as substantial evidence for arbitrary and capricious review. The Commission’s decision does not run counter to the evidence, nor is it implausible or irrational. … No doubt recognizing the difficulty in establishing that the FCC’s exclusivity rule violates that rather flexible statutory text, cf. Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def.