Case law

Atc Petroleum, Inc. v. John C. Sanders, Administrator, Small Business Administration. Koch Fuels, Inc. v. John C. Sanders, Administrator, Small Business Administration

860 F.2d 1104 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 25, 1988

Additionally, SBA may assist a qualified small business in performing its SBA contracts by providing technical and management support. 15 U.S.C. … This is clearly a government-bestowed subsidy.

United States v. Hubbell, Webster L.

167 F.3d 552 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 26, 1999

We are not confronted here with a situation where the money at issue is clearly untainted by possible underlying obstruction. … The Upshot of Immunity A grant of statutory immunity under 18 U.S.C. §§ 6002 , 6003, extends as far as the Fifth Amendment privilege it supplants.

National Treasury Employees Union v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

550 F.3d 1148 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 2008

Under this test, the Authority requires the union to establish that the proposal is in fact intended as an arrangement to benefit employees. … As part of the process of establishing the Department of Homeland Security, Congress created the U.S.

Wilhelmina Pope v. The Railroad Retirement Board Edwin Thrash v. The Railroad Retirement Board

744 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 2, 1984

Plaintiffs and members of their class are annuitants under the Act who received alleged over-payments of annuities and who had their monthly benefits reduced so that the Annuity Fund established under the Act could be reimbursed … Its basis for the contention is sovereign immunity. Its position is untenable.

Brown v. Pro Football, Inc.

50 F.3d 1041 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 1995

The so-called statutory labor exemption is clearly inapplicable here. … or effect is to restrain product output markets, are not immune.

Wilfred Rattigan v. Eric Holder, Jr.

689 F.3d 764 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 2012

In our view, the government’s concerns are insufficient to justify the sweeping immunity from Title VII liability that it seeks. … But we need not grant the government such broad immunity. As explained above, a narrow, knowingly false standard for security reporting claims creates no conflict with Executive Order 12,968.

Herbert Harvey, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

424 F.2d 770 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 19, 1969

The agreement established the Bank as an intergovernmental institution, corporate in form, with all of its capital stock being owned by its member governments. … Under the agreement the Bank enjoys certain privileges and immunities.

James F. Hunt and Carol Hunt v. United States of America. Catherine Strinni Hollar v. United States

636 F.2d 580 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 29, 1980

establish novel and unprecedented governmental liability.” … The Provisions of the Act The Act authorized the Department of Health, Education, and Welfare to establish and coordinate the swine flu immunization program. See 42 U.S.C. § 247b(j)(l) (1976).

Bettis v. Islamic Republic

315 F.3d 325 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 17, 2003

The District Court clearly did not err in declining to apply § 46(1) to appellants’ claims. As Amicus Curiae correctly notes, If any person that Iran hoped to distress by holding and torturing Fr. … And, as we have shown, appellants can find no support for their claims in the established common law.

Edison Pharmaceutical Co. v. Food & Drug Administration

513 F.2d 1063 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 1975

In so doing we are not establishing a new requirement for a full hearing whenever only a threshold issue is in dispute. … Nonetheless on March 22, 1974, the District Court granted summary judgment in favor of Marion Finkel, the FDA employee, on grounds of official immunity, and in favor of Baxter and Travenol Laboratories “since any injury suffered

Earl Smith, Jr. v. Secretary of the Navy

659 F.2d 1113 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 1981

Under that standard a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of employment discrimination by showing 18 (i) that he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that he applied and was qualified for a job for which the employer was … Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co., 595 F.2d 711, 720 (D.C.Cir.1978), clearly establishes that "dissemination of adverse references for reasons condemned by Title VII constitutes an unlawful 'employment practice' within (

Heitmeyer v. Federal Communications Commission

95 F.2d 91 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 27, 1937

A number of jobbing establishments are located in the city, and railroad shops employ a considerable number of men. … However, it does clearly appear that he had insufficient money to construct the station without that which he borrowed.

Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Intervenors. United Transportation Union v. United States of America and Interstate Commerce Commission, Missouri-Kansas-Texas Railroad Company, Denver & Rio Grande Western Railroad Company, Union Pacific Railroad Company, Intervenors

761 F.2d 714 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 1985

Congress has given ICC broad powers to immunize transactions from later legal obstacles, but this delegation by Congress is explicitly qualified by a necessity component. … Apparently, this court is not "fastidious about the impropriety of reaching merits issues without first establishing jurisdiction." Beattie v.

Duberry v. Dist. of Columbia

924 F.3d 570 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 21, 2019

The District also claims that, under tort law principles, Appellees have “fail[ed] to establish entitlement to relief under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 because they have not established that they possess the requisite identification … causation for purposes of standing, Op. 4, 18, when it so clearly (but non-meritoriously) framed its causation contention in terms of tort causation necessary for liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

Cummings v. Department of the Navy

279 F.3d 1051 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 15, 2002

The district court correctly reminded us that “waivers of sovereign immunity must be unequivocally expressed and narrowly construed,” Cummings, 116 F.Supp.2d at 81 (quoting Dorsey v. … Although judicial reluctance to impinge on military matters is understandable in many contexts, 4 it is *1057 unjustified in this setting; as we have discussed, the Congress clearly enlisted the federal courts to inquire

Charter Operators v. Blank

844 F. Supp. 2d 122 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 24, 2012

established an optimum yield for halibut prior to implementing the Final Rule. … The provisions cited by the plaintiffs in their argument clearly precede the seven enumerated criteria set forth in § 1853(b)(6)(A)-(G).

Gray Panthers Advocacy Committee v. Louis W. Sullivan, M.D., Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services

936 F.2d 1284 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 12, 1991

Our reluctance in this regard is strengthened where, as here, other portions of the same statute clearly and explicitly impose a rulemaking requirement. … The medically related social and emotional needs of the patient are identified and services provided to meet them, either by qualified staff of the facility, or by referral, based on established procedures, to appropriate

Fred B. Black, Jr. v. Sheraton Corporation of America Appeal of United States of America

564 F.2d 531 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 1977

Read in its entirety, the Report indicates that the Committee viewed as clearly precluded by the doctrine of sovereign immunity only those torts with which the amendment was concerned, e. g, assault, battery, etc. … This is clearly inconsistent with existing law, see, e. g., Downs v.

Chamber of Commerce of the United States v. Robert B. Reich, Secretary, United States Department of Labor

74 F.3d 1322 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 2, 1996

Nor does sovereign immunity appear to bar appellants’ suit. … The court merely noted that this requirement would increase the pool of qualified labor and thereby reduce costs. 442 F.2d at 171 .

United States v. Moore

651 F.3d 30 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 29, 2011

Moore and Gray’s joint stewardship in Northeast after November 17, 1995, is established most clearly by Andrews’s answers on the government’s direct examination: Q: How often, when you were hanging out with Kevin Gray every … But the district court had no authority to immunize Ward, or to compel the government to immunize Ward. The decision to grant immunity from prosecution rests solely with the Executive Branch.