
	Where results make sense

Topic: United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit

Related Topics

Federal district court

United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces

United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the First Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit

United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit

United States court of appeals

United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit

	United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, known informally as the "D.C. Circuit", is the federal appellate court for the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia.
		Appeals from the D.C. Circuit, as with all the U.S. Courts of Appeals, are heard on a discretionary basis by the Supreme Court.
		It should not be confused with the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, which is roughly equivalent to a state supreme court in the District of Columbia.
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_District_of_Columbia_Circuit (1119 words)

	[No title]
		Workerâs Compensation Appeals Board she upheld the role of the workerâs compensation appeals board in applying a stringent standard of âindustrial causationâ for a workerâs injury, thereby showing that the state has a proper role in ensuring the safety of workers.
		Superior Court, she held that a peace officer is statutorily entitled to view adverse comments in his personnel file and file a written response to a background investigation of the officer during probationary employment.
		Superior Court, she allowed a claim by insured employers against a workers= compensation insurer for misallocating the plaintiffs= claims expenses and reporting that misinformation to a ratemaking organization, resulting in higher premiums for plaintiffs.
	judiciary.senate.gov /member_statement.cfm?id=989&wit_id=2628 (927 words)

	MAY 28, 1999 COURT DECISION (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		On May 28, 1999, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit issued its decision regarding the National Mining Association's challenge to the Office of Surface Mining's interim final ownership and control rules (62 FR 19450, April 21, 1997).
		In consolidated district court ac- tions the National Mining Association (NMA) challenged all three final rules and the district court granted summary judgment to OSM in each action.
		The Arch court, however, based its holding on the premise that, contrary to OSM's position, a permit block is an "action, suit or proceeding for the enforcement of any civil fine, penalty, or forfeiture," without considering whether the Congress in enacting SMCRA intended to exempt such blocks from section 2462.
	www.osmre.gov /courtdecision052899.htm (3117 words)

	New York Times Co. v. United States (1971)
		The judgment of the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit is therefore affirmed.
		The order of the Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit is reversed and the case is remanded with directions to enter a judgment affirming the judgment of the District Court for the Southern District of New York.
		I believe that the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit should [748] be affirmed and the judgment of the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit should be reversed insofar as it remands the case for further hearings.
	www.bc.edu /bc_org/avp/cas/comm/free_speech/nytvus.html (11970 words)

	Watkins v. United States
		An appeal was taken to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia.
		United States, 279 U.S. 263, the Court applied the precepts of Kilbourn to uphold the authority of the Congress to conduct the challenged investigations.
		The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed, and the case is remanded to the District Court with instructions to dismiss the indictment.
	www.tourolaw.edu /patch/Watkins (10391 words)

	[No title]
		The court reviews the district court's summary judgment decision de novo and "we may affirm only if 'there is no genuine issue as to any material fact [and] the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.' " Gilvin v.
		In Trans Union I, however, the court expressly held that "information about individual consumers and their credit performance" in Trans Union's marketing lists is not subject to strict scrutiny because it "is solely of interest to the company and its business customers and relates to no matter of public concern." 245 F.3d at 818.
		United States, 527 U.S. (under Central Hudson test, "governmental body seeking to sustain a restriction on commercial speech must demonstrate that the harms it recites are real and that its restriction will in fact alleviate them to a material degree") (quoting Eden- field v.
	pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov /common/opinions/200207/01-5202a.txt (2855 words)

	Eagle Forum and Cato Institute Amicus in Eldred v. Ashcroft
		The instant case raises squarely the question of the role of amici in the federal courts and thus is of central interest to Cato and the Center.2 SUMMARY OF ARGUMENT This case raises important issues regarding the constitu- tional constraints upon Congress's copyright powers that have divided the courts of appeals.
		The broad circuit split regarding whether supplemental amicus arguments not expressly adopted by the parties may be considered by the courts of appeals should be resolved by this Court.
		Because Federal Rule 29 eschews such a useless and court-burdening role for amici, and because the circuits are split over this important question for the administration of the appellate courts, this Court should grant the petition and re-establish the uniform and sensible approach contemplated by Rule 29.
	cyber.law.harvard.edu /openlaw/eldredvashcroft/cert/eagle-amicus.html (4185 words)

	Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc. (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		We conclude that it was the Court of Appeals, rather than Congress or any of the decisionmakers who are authorized by Congress to administer this legislation, that was primarily responsible for the 1980 position taken by the agency.
		The judgment of the Court of Appeals is reversed.
		The court need not conclude that the agency construction was the only one it permissibly could have adopted to uphold the construction, or even the reading the court would have reached if the question initially had arisen in a judicial proceeding.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0467_0837_ZO.html (7333 words)

	Moot Court Brief of Chimene Keitner and Travis LeBlanc for Petitioner
		The opinion of the United States District Court for the District of Columbia is reported at 74 F. Supp.
		The court recognized that Petitioners “benefit from works in the public domain and are deprived of that benefit so long as such works are under copyright,” 239 F.3d at 375, and that this deprivation “is as true for works not yet created as for extant works on which the copyrights are about to expire.” Id.
		The court of appeals and the district court in the present case relied on this Court’s opinion in Harper and Row v.
	cyber.law.harvard.edu /openlaw/eldredvashcroft/reference/yale-mootcourt.html (10913 words)

	[No title]
		The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, holding that the legislative-veto clause is severable from the remainder of the EPP program.
		We agree and affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
		Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the Court of Appeals.
	www.law.mercer.edu /elaw/alaska.html (7064 words)

	Rules -2002 "Registration and Reregistration Application Fees"
		The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found DEA's rulemaking to be inadequate on July 27, 1995.
		The district court remanded the matter to DEA for proceedings consistent with the appeals court opinion on November 22, 1995.
		The plaintiffs appealed, and the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit found DEA's rulemaking to be inadequate in July 1995.
	www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov /fed_regs/rules/2002/fr0809a.htm (9106 words)

	[No title]
		United States, 488 U.S. Although this Court has not struck down a congressional delegation since the early New Deal (id., 488 U.S. at 373), the "intelligible principle" standard is not the child of an out-of-date court, as so many critics of the "nondelegation doctrine" insist.
		United States, 295 U.S. Indeed, in the much maligned, but never overruled, Schechter case, the thoroughly modern justice, Benjamin Cardozo, lent the prestige of his pen to affirm the nondelegation doctrine and the majority's holding.
		And the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has read Section 109(b)(1) of the CAA as barring the EPA from considering even technological feasibility, ruling that the sole objective of the CAA is to protect public health.
	www.wjopc.com /site/constitutional/browner.html (5965 words)

	Kent v. United States
		As a juvenile, he was subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the District of Columbia Juvenile Court unless that court, after "full investigation," should waive jurisdiction over him and remit him for trial to the United States District Court for the District of Columbia.
		On appeal, petitioner raised, among other things, the validity of the Juvenile Court's waiver of jurisdiction; the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit affirmed, finding the procedure leading to waiver and the waiver order itself valid.
		(c) As the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has held, "the waiver of jurisdiction is a ‘critically important' [p542] action determining vitally important statutory rights of the juvenile." Pp.
	straylight.law.cornell.edu /supct/html/historics/USSC_CR_0383_0541_ZS.html (446 words)

	Rules-1996 "Registration and Reregistration Application Fees"
		On November 22, 1995, the District Court remanded the matter to DEA for proceedings consistent with the opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit.
		DEA's rulemaking was challenged in court, in part on the grounds that it failed to provide adequate notice or explanation of the costs and scope of the DCP to be funded through the fees.
		The United States' obligations under the conventions are recognized in the specific language of the CSA and the implementing regulations (see 21 USC 801, 801(a), 811(d)(1), 823(a) and 958(a), and 21 CFR 1307.02).
	www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov /fed_regs/rules/1996/fr12301996.htm (7186 words)

	DEA's Brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals - November 6, 1995 - Part 1
		The latter decision was affirmed by this Court in Alliance for Cannabis Therapeutics, 15 F.3d at 1137.
		8Thus, the Deputy Administrator was correct in stating that "[w]hether or not marijuana is a source of delta-9-THC is irrelevant to the status of marijuana under the CSA." A. Despite the petitioner's assertions, this statement is not inconsistent with United States v.
		Although the Grinspoon court found that the lack of FDA approval did not preclude a finding of accepted medical use, DEA was not faced with such a case; the 1985 petition only sought to reschedule Marinol, a substance that had been approved by the FDA.
	www.druglibrary.org /olsen/DEA/dea95.html (5262 words)

	United States Court of Appeals for the Distri... - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
		United States Court of Appeals for the Distri...
		We don't have an article called "United States Court of Appeals for the Distri..."
		Search for "United States Court of Appeals for the Distri..." in...
	en.wikipedia.org /wiki/United_States_Court_of_Appeals_for_the_Distri... (95 words)

	[No title]
		United States Court of Appeals FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CIRCUIT Argued February 6, 2001 Decided April 13, 2001 No. 00-1141 Trans Union Corporation, Petitioner v.
		It is the responsibility of the Commission's counsel, however, to ensure that the Court is not misled by the statements in the Order not supported by the evidence.
		The relevant regulation states as follows (the sentences Trans Union omits are in italics): Any advice given by the Commission is without prejudice to the right of the Commission to reconsider the ques- tions involved and, where the public interest requires, to rescind or revoke the action.
	pacer.cadc.uscourts.gov /common/opinions/200104/00-1141a.txt (3435 words)

	Olsen's Reply Brief to the U.S. Court of Appeals - December 4, 1995 (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		The United States is bound by this treaty and the ____________________
		This international rescheduling procedure allowed the United States to reschedule dronabinol, although the DEA is claiming that only the specific isomer dronabinol (and only when made synthetically) in sesame oil and encapsulated in a soft gelatin capsule was actually rescheduled.
		This court interpreted the plain meaning of the statute, as well as its history in the Marihuana Tax Act of 1937, and determined that it was plain from the face of the statute that THC
	mojo.calyx.net /~olsen/DEA/reply95.html (3739 words)

	[No title]
		Columbia's (undisputed) claim of eligibility as a "[c]ommon carrier[ ] engaged directly or indirectly in the business of affording public landline message telephone service" in the St. James RSA was based on its affiliation with Reserve Telephone Company, a small, independent, rural telephone company operating a wireline
		BellSouth and Columbia each filed petitions for reconsideration of the MSD order, arguing that to allow an applicant providing only non-wireline service to apply for frequencies set aside for providers of "landline" service would violate the plain meaning of the regulation.
		Finally, MobileTel argues that the Commission acted arbitrarily and capriciously in dismissing its applications because MobileTel and Columbia had arrived at a settlement agreement, and the Commission failed to consider the possibility that dismissing MobileTel's application would contravene the purpose of the Commission's directives encouraging mutually-exclusive applicants to create such agreements.
	www.fcc.gov /ogc/documents/opinions/1997/mobiltel.html (2563 words)

	United States District Court for the District of Columbia (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		United States District Court for the District of Columbia
		October 28, 2005: In Re: Special Counsel Investigation
		Also, no cameras, camera phones, or recording devices permitted in the Courthouse.
	www.dcd.uscourts.gov (136 words)

	The United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit Today Addressed Rural Telephone Carrier ...
		Although the court found that any failure to comply with the APA was harmless, the court held that the FCC had failed to consider the impact of its action on small wireless carriers and rural telephone companies as required by the RFA.
		In the Wireless Case (which involved the obligations of wireless carriers to port numbers to one another), the Court determined that the obligations imposed by the FCC flowed from its previous number portability order and that the Wireless-to-Wireless Order, therefore, was an interpretive order that did not require further action under the APA or RFA.
		Now that the court has stayed the enforcement of the Intermodal Order, the FCC will have to consider rural rating and routing issues that have been pending for years.
	www.tmcnet.com /usubmit/2005/Mar/1124668.htm (1146 words)

	CADC Internet - Home (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		October 6, 2005 - Notice of Proposed Circuit Rule Change
		May 20, 2005 - Notice of Proposed Circuit Rule Changes
		July 21, 2004 Notice of proposed amendment to the Court's Plan to Implement the Criminal Justice Act of 1964 ("CJA")
	www.cadc.uscourts.gov /internet/internet.nsf (52 words)

	US Senator Orrin Hatch (Site not responding. Last check: 2007-10-09)
		JUDICIARY STATEMENT: "EXECUTIVE BUSINESS MEETING ON THE NOMINATION OF JANICE ROGERS BROWN"
		Floor Statement: "Nomination of William Pryor to Eleventh Circuit"
		Floor Statement: "Amendment to HR 2673 on the Regulation of Dietary Supplements"
	hatch.senate.gov /index.cfm?FuseAction=PressReleases.Detail&PressRelease_id=934&Month=11&Year=2003 (1086 words)

Try your search on: Qwika (all wikis)