⚖ SoapBox law
CasesDocketsStatutesRegulationsJudgesLawyersFile a complaintOversightDataLibrary

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”

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 2008-01-29 · Published · cited 33× · 514 F.3d 37; 379 U.S. App. D.C. 354; 85 U.S.P.Q. 2d (BNA) 1693; 2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 1859; 2008 WL 220638
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
District Court, District of Columbia · 2006-08-03 · Published · cited 10× · 442 F. Supp. 2d 15; 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 53506
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.
District Court, District of Columbia · 2011-04-19 · Published · cited 2× · 779 F. Supp. 2d 14; 2011 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 45174; 2011 WL 1595161
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
District Court, District of Columbia · 2009-05-18 · Published · cited 6× · 616 F. Supp. 2d 40; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 43399
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,
District Court, District of Columbia · 2009-05-19 · Published · cited 0×
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. ) ___________________
District Court, District of Columbia · 2009-08-28 · Published · cited 7× · 648 F. Supp. 2d 95; 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 78471; 2009 WL 2749359
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
District Court, District of Columbia · 2009-08-28 · Published · cited 0×
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,
Department of Justice Office of Legal Counsel · 2025-09-02 · Published · cited 0×
(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
District Court, District of Columbia · 1985-11-20 · Published · cited 4× · 622 F. Supp. 1364; 1985 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13679
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
District Court, District of Columbia · 2014-09-02 · Published · cited 23× · 66 F. Supp. 3d 46; 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 122210; 2014 WL 4327949
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
District Court, District of Columbia · 2014-09-02 · Published · cited 0×
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., )
Texas Court of Appeals, 1st District (Houston) · 2015-11-05 · Published · cited 0×
ACCEPTED 01-15-00625-CV FIRST COURT OF APPEALS HOUSTON, TEXAS
District Court, District of Columbia · 2010-06-07 · Published · cited 0×
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
District Court, District of Columbia · 2010-06-07 · Published · cited 28× · 715 F. Supp. 2d 99; 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56116; 2010 WL 2244122
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
District Court, District of Columbia · 2012-07-18 · Published · cited 9× · 878 F. Supp. 2d 42; 2012 WL 2914442; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 99389
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
United States Court of Federal Claims · 2022-12-12 · Published · cited 0×
In the United States Court of Federal Claims No. 22-1554C (Filed: December 12, 2022) FOR PUBLICATION *************************************** AIR BOREALIS LIMITED * PARTNERSHIP, * * Plaintiff, * * v. *
Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit · 2008-02-25 · Published · cited 0× · 517 F.3d 1318
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,
California Court of Appeal · 2025-02-13 · Published · cited 0×
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
District Court, District of Columbia · 2012-09-20 · Published · cited 0× · 891 F. Supp. 2d 147; 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 134383
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
Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · 2018-12-07 · Published · cited 66× · 910 F.3d 751
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