Case law

Venetian Casino Resort, L.L.C. v. National Labor Relations Board

484 F.3d 601 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 8, 2007

The Ninth Circuit considered the very argument the Venetian urges us to reconsider here, and clearly and conclusively rejected it. See Venetian Casino, 257 F.3d at 948. … Noerr itself immunized from Sherman Act liability activity that was not direct government petitioning.

American Trucking Associations, Inc., and Common Carrier Conference-Irregular Route v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America

697 F.2d 1146 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 14, 1983

This is clearly not the Committee’s intent. … This may be possible (though Petitioners have not clearly told us how) but we are not persuaded that it is reasonably necessary, which is the burden Petitioners must bear.

Lawrence E. Gray, Augustus A. Simpson, Jr. v. Office of Personnel Management, an Agency of the U.S. Government

771 F.2d 1504 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1985

Specifically, appellants claim that Carducci established a new principle of law when, for the first time, it precluded judicial review under the APA of agency actions taken against AUs. … United States, 721 F.2d 385, 388 (D.C.Cir.1983) (holding that suits against the United States are generally precluded under the doctrine of sovereign immunity unless expressly and specifically waived).

Joseph J. Ledoux v. District of Columbia Raymond J. Greene v. District of Columbia

820 F.2d 1293 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 16, 1987

Title VII Under the guidelines established by the Supreme Court in Weber , and refined by the Court in Johnson , we find that the appellants have failed in their burden to establish the invalidity of the Department’s Plan … Because these factual findings are not clearly erroneous, we affirm this portion of the trial court’s judgment. .

Indianapolis Power & Light Company v. United States Environmental Protection Agency, Environmental Defense Fund, Intervenors

58 F.3d 643 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 23, 1995

Congress encouraged the installation of scrubbers by establishing an extension allowance program. 42 U.S.C. § 7651c(d). … to utilities that qualify for and participate in the program.

Acosta v. Nelson

561 F. App'x 4 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 3, 2014

Even under that generous standard of review, a reasonable jury could find, at most, that the prison officials acted with negligence, which is insufficient to establish an Eighth Amendment violation. See Wilson v. … immunity, or whether Acosta could have obtained injunctive relief in addition to or in lieu of money damages.

Jerome Stevens Pharmaceuticals, Inc. v. Food & Drug Administration

402 F.3d 1249 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 8, 2005

At the pleading stage, the issue before the district court was not whether JSP had established sufficient proof of damages caused by FDA’s disclosure of JSP’s trade secrets, but whether JSP had sufficiently pled claims for … In dismissing Count VI of JSP’s complaint, the district court ruled that FDA’s extensions of the NDA deadlines “qualify as decisions not to prosecute or enforce, and therefore enjoy a presumption of unreviewability.”

Perry Capital LLC v. Steven Mnuchin

848 F.3d 1072 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 21, 2017

waived the agency’s immunity by consenting to suit. … Contrary to the class plaintiffs’ assertions, two circuit court decisions do not so clearly “settle!

Burt Lake Band of Ottawa & Chippewa Indians v. Zinke

304 F. Supp. 3d 70 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 29, 2018

"The plaintiff, as the party invoking federal jurisdiction, bears the burden of establishing these elements....[so] plaintiff must 'clearly ... allege facts demonstrating' each element." … Claims brought under the APA, "must also establish ...'

United States v. Violations of 18 U.S.C. Sections 231, 241, 245, 371, 1361, 2101, 2102

452 F.2d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 23, 1971

The interests on both sides are clearly substantial. … The legal standards which control the granting of immunity are well established.

United States v. Dennis T. McDonald

481 F.2d 513 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 1973

Nor have the courts imported such *524 an immunity into the fundamental law. 35 Rather, the local power is merely one of a number of powers conferred on the Congress, and immunity from equal protection scrutiny by the judiciary … Moreover, there is every reason to disapprove such a claim of immunity.

Anti-Defamation League of B'nai B'rith v. National Mexican American Anti-Defamation Committee, Inc.

510 F.2d 1246 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 7, 1975

With all respect, we think the record clearly supports the earlier position of the trial court. … The evidence established a secondary meaning of “anti-defamation league” which tied that concept to appellant.

Joseph P. Connors, Sr. v. Incoal, Inc., A/K/A Incoal Coal Co.

995 F.2d 245 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 1993

Disposition on Summary Judgment Although we conclude that the District Court erred in holding that an economic nexus must be established between Incoal and Double A Farms before the latter can qualify as a “trade or business … .”); see also Sorrell, 882 F.2d at 490 n. 17 (whether an enterprise qualifies as a “trade or business” under section 162(a) is reviewable under the clearly erroneous standard); Faulconer, 748 F.2d at 895 (same).

Department Of The Army v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

56 F.3d 273 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 9, 1995

Because the United States has not clearly waived its immunity from suit for this monetary relief, we grant the petition for review, deny the application for enforcement, and vacate the disputed portion of the order under … The answer is clearly negative; the term "action" is simply not clear or specific enough to support such a waiver.

John Cary Sims v. Central Intelligence Agency, John Cary Sims v. Central Intelligence Agency, Administrator, Stansfield Turner

709 F.2d 95 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 10, 1983

Clearly, therefore, the definition itself is part of the holding of the Sims I decision. … Clearly, the existence of “an informant-solicited promise of secrecy” does not conclusively establish “the practical necessity of secrecy.”

In re Long-Distance Telephone Service Federal Excise Tax Refund Litigation

539 F. Supp. 2d 281 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 2008

Different policy considerations underlie the two deadlines established by § 6532. … Furthermore, customers prejudiced by *304 the temporary continuance of the tax could recoup their losses through the refund procedure established by Notice 2006-50, which established safe harbor refund amounts of $30 to $60

Megapulse, Inc. v. Lewis

672 F.2d 959 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 29, 1982

It also noted, however, the “well-established rule [under the Tucker Act] that jurisdiction over government contract disputes lies exclusively in the Court of Claims, which cannot issue an injunction.” 13 Faced with the question … Chrysler clearly states that “any disclosure that violates § 1905 [Trade Secrets Act] is ‘not in accordance with law’ within the meaning of 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A).” Id.

Allen Sharp, Lieutenant Colonel, United States Air Force Reserves v. Caspar Weinberger, Secretary of Defense

798 F.2d 1521 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 1986

Its language could reasonably be read to establish one or more of six quite different criteria for exclusive Federal Circuit jurisdiction: (1) That the district court's jurisdiction “was based” on the Little Tucker Act in … The underlying rationale of Van Drasek was quite broad, however, and clearly embraces the proposition that "subjective” district court reliance on the Little Tucker Act is simply irrelevant to the jurisdictional question.

Mckesson Corporation v. Islamic Republic Of Iran

52 F.3d 346 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 25, 1995

Iran's appeal presents two issues regarding its immunity under the Foreign Sovereign Immunities Act of 1976 (FSIA), Pub.L. No. 94-583, 90 Stat. 2891 (1976) (codified in part at 28 U.S.C. … The discovery order does not qualify for such treatment. It is not independently appealable.

Daniel Brink v. Continental Insurance Company

787 F.3d 1120 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 2015

In their view, the Base Act “does not extend tort immunity to intentional torts of the employer, the insurance carrier, or third parties.” Appellants’ Br. 20. … Appellants did not allege any facts establishing required elements of a RICO enterprise: “(1) a common purpose among the participants, (2) organization, and (3) continuity.” United States v.