Cases
Search U.S. court opinions (CourtListener / Free Law Project), or resolve a reporter citation to its case via the Caselaw Access Project. Facts only — name, court, date, status, citation count. Never a holding-summary.
20 opinions for “CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORPORATION v. DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE”
Canadian Commercial Corp. v. Department of Air Forcepublic domain
Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GINSBURG. Concurring opinion filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. GINSBURG, Chief Judge: Canadian Commercial Corporation and Orenda Aerospace Corporation (hereinafter collectively CCC) brought this “reverse” Freedom of Information Act case to prevent the Air Force from releasing line-item pricing information in CCC’s contract to provide services to the A
442 F.Supp.2d 15 (2006) CANADIAN COMMERCIAL CORP., et al., Plaintiffs, v. DEPARTMENT OF the AIR FORCE, Defendant. Civil Action No. 04-1189 (JDB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 3, 2006. *16 Kristen Elizabeth Ittig, Holland & Knight LLP, Washington, DC, for Plaintiff. Oliver W. McDaniel, U.S.
779 F.Supp.2d 14 (2011) HONEYWELL TECHNOLOGY SOLUTIONS, INC. v. DEPARTMENT OF The AIR FORCE, Defendant. Civ. No. 05-1772 (TFH). United States District Court, District of Columbia. April 19, 2011. *16 Richard James Vacura, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, McLean, VA, for Honeywell Technology Solutions, Inc. Michelle Lo, U.S. A
Boeing Co. v. U.S. Department of the Air Forcepublic domain
616 F.Supp.2d 40 (2009) The BOEING COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF the AIR FORCE, Defendant. Civil Action No. 05-365 (GK). United States District Court, District of Columbia. May 18, 2009. *42 Richard William Oehler, Perkins & Coie, Seattle, WA, for Plaintiff. Lanny James Acosta, Jr., U.S. Attorney's Office,
Boeing Company v. U.S. Department of the Air Forcepublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ______________________________ ) THE BOEING COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. ) ) Civil Action No. 05-365 (GK) U.S. DEPARTMENT OF THE ) AIR FORCE, ) ) Defendant. ) ___________________
General Electric Co. v. Department of Air Forcepublic domain
648 F.Supp.2d 95 (2009) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, Plaintiff, v. DEPARTMENT OF the AIR FORCE, Defendant. Civil Action No. 01-1549 (CCB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. August 28, 2009. *97 Richard James Vacura, Morrison & Foerster, LLP, McLean, VA, for Plaintiff. Beverly Maria Russell, U.S. Attorney
General Electric Co. v. Dept. of Air Forcepublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ____________________________________ ) GENERAL ELECTRIC COMPANY, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 01-1549 (CCB) ) DEPARTMENT OF THE AIR FORCE,
(Slip Opinion) Whether the Creation of Natcast Violates the Government Corporation Control Act The Government Corporation Control Act applies to an agency that brings a corporation into existence, even if the agency does not retain ownership of or control over the corporation. An agency cannot avoid the strictures of the Government Corporation Control Act by enlisting private individuals as proxies to incorporate an entity that would otherwise violate the Gov
Badhwar v. United States Department of the Air Forcepublic domain
622 F.Supp. 1364 (1985) Inderjit BADHWAR, et al., Plaintiffs, v. UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF the AIR FORCE, et al., Defendants. Civ. A. No. 84-0154. United States District Court, District of Columbia. November 20, 1985. *1365 *1366 *1367 Isaac N. Groner, Ra
Conservation Force v. Jewellpublic domain
MEMORANDUM OPINION KETANJI BROWN JACKSON, United States District Judge In 2009, the Fish and Wildlife Service (“FWS”) denied a series of permit applications that would have allowed certain individuals to import hunting trophies of Canadian bison into the United States. In a search for documents related to that FWS determination, Plaintiff Conservati
Conservation Force v. Jewellpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) CONSERVATION FORCE, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action No. 12-cv-1665 (KBJ) ) SALLY JEWELL, Secretary of the U.S. ) Department of the Interior, et al., )
Gulf Coast International, L.L.C. v. the Research Corporation of the University of Hawaiipublic domain
ACCEPTED 01-15-00625-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
Conservation Force v. Salazarpublic domain
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONSERVATION FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Civil Action No. 09-496 (JDB) KENNETH SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants. MEMORANDUM OPINION Plaintiffs -- organizations and individuals
Conservation Force v. Salazarpublic domain
715 F.Supp.2d 99 (2010) CONSERVATION FORCE, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Kenneth SALAZAR, in his official capacity as Secretary of the United States Department of the Interior, et al., Defendants. Civil Action No. 09-496 (JDB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. June 7, 2010. *100 John J. Jackson, III, Conservation For
MEMORANDUM OPINION ' JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. The Export-Import Bank of the United States has long been in the business of issuing loan guarantees to support foreign airlines’ purchases of aircraft from domestic manufacturers. While the Bank’s involvement in the air-travel industry undoubtedly serves the interests of
Air Borealis Limited Partnership v. United Statespublic domain
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 22-1554C (Filed: December 12, 2022) FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** AIR BOREALIS LIMITED * PARTNERSHIP, * * Plaintiff, * * v. *
Canadian Lumber Trade Alliance v. United Statespublic domain
MICHEL, Chief Judge. This is a trade case concerning the interplay between the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, Pub.L. No. 103-182, 107 Stat. 2057 (1993) (codified at 19 U.S.C. §§ 3301-3473) (“NAFTA Implementation Act” or “NIA”), and the Continued Dumping and Subsidy Offset Act, Pub.L. No. 106-387, § 1003, 114 Stat. 1549, 1623 (2000) (“CDSOA”), repealed by the Deficit Reduction Act of 2005,
Filed 2/13/25 CERTIFIED FOR PUBLICATION IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT DIVISION SEVEN WESTERN STATES B327663 PETROLEUM ASSOCIATION, (Los Angeles County Plaintiff and Appellant, Super. Ct. No. 20STCP03138) v. CALIFORNIA AIR RESOURCES BOARD, Defendant and Respondent. APPEAL from a judgment of the
MEMORANDUM OPINION JAMES E. BOASBERG, District Judge. In this “reverse-FOIA” case, Plaintiffs— Missouri dog breeders and dealers — seek *150 to prevent the U.S. Department of Agriculture from releasing information requested by the Humane Society of the United St
Air Evac EMS, Inc. v. Ted Cheathampublic domain
WILKINSON, Circuit Judge: The Airline Deregulation Act of 1978 (ADA) expressly preempts state efforts to regulate the prices, routes, and services of certain air carriers. Beginning in 2011, West Virginia enacted various laws to limit the reimbursement rates of air ambulance companies. Air Evac, an air ambulance company and registered air carrier, sued to enjoin the enforcement of the