§Why CasetextPricing

American Bus Association, Inc. v. Rogoff et al

Memorandum in opposition to re MOTION for Preliminary Injunction

95 Cited authorities

  1. Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife

    504 U.S. 555 (1992)   Cited 27,832 times   138 Legal Analyses
    Holding that the elements of standing "must be supported in the same way as any other matter on which the plaintiff bears the burden of proof"

  2. County of Sacramento v. Lewis

    523 U.S. 833 (1998)   Cited 8,704 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "only a purpose to cause harm unrelated to the legitimate object of arrest will satisfy the element of arbitrary conduct shocking to the conscience, necessary for a due process violation"

  3. Bowles v. Russell

    551 U.S. 205 (2007)   Cited 3,484 times   19 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "unique circumstances" doctrine may not excuse untimely filing of appeal in civil case

  4. Mathews v. Eldridge

    424 U.S. 319 (1976)   Cited 15,749 times   42 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a procedure based on written submissions was adequate because it included safeguards against mistake including that the agency informed the recipient of its tentative assessment and the evidence supporting it and an opportunity was then afforded the recipient to submit additional evidence "enabling him to challenge directly the accuracy of information in his file as well as the correctness of the agency's tentative conclusions"

  5. Mazurek v. Armstrong

    520 U.S. 968 (1997)   Cited 3,350 times   2 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "a plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunctive relief has a "requirement for substantial proof is much higher" than a defendant's summary judgment motion

  6. United States v. Salerno

    481 U.S. 739 (1987)   Cited 5,399 times   14 Legal Analyses
    Holding that "extensive safeguards" are necessary "to repel a facial challenge"

  7. Morrissey v. Brewer

    408 U.S. 471 (1972)   Cited 10,679 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Holding that parolees "must have an opportunity to be heard and to show . . . that circumstances in mitigation suggest that the violation does not warrant revocation"

  8. Heller v. Doe

    509 U.S. 312 (1993)   Cited 2,340 times   1 Legal Analyses
    Holding that courts must accept a legislature's generalizations under rational basis review "even when there is an imperfect fit between means and ends" or where the classification "is not made with mathematical nicety"

  9. Federal Communications Commission v. Beach Communications, Inc.

    508 U.S. 307 (1993)   Cited 2,228 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding that a law survives rational basis review so long as there is "any reasonably conceivable state of facts that could provide a rational basis for the classification"

  10. Hunt v. Washington Apple Advertising Comm'n

    432 U.S. 333 (1977)   Cited 4,436 times   8 Legal Analyses
    Holding that North Carolina's statute banning state grading of apples was discriminatory even though six other states also had no state grading

  11. Section 1983 - Civil action for deprivation of rights

    42 U.S.C. § 1983   Cited 486,856 times   688 Legal Analyses
    Holding liable any state actor who "subjects, or causes [a person] to be subjected" to a constitutional violation

  12. Section 701 - Application; definitions

    5 U.S.C. § 701   Cited 9,365 times   36 Legal Analyses
    Adopting the definition given in Section 551

  13. Section 5301 - Policies and purposes

    49 U.S.C. § 5301   Cited 44 times

    (a) DECLARATION OF POLICY.-It is in the interest of the United States, including the economic interest of the United States, to foster the development and revitalization of public transportation systems with the cooperation of both public transportation companies and private companies engaged in public transportation. (b) GENERAL PURPOSES.-The purposes of this chapter are to- (1) provide funding to support public transportation; (2) improve the development and delivery of capital projects; (3) establish

  14. Section 5323 - General provisions

    49 U.S.C. § 5323   Cited 25 times   15 Legal Analyses
    Providing that federal financial assistance to public transportation providers may be used "only if the applicant agrees not to provide schoolbus transportation that exclusively transports students and school personnel in competition with a private schoolbus operator"

  15. Section 1.45 - Delegations to the Director of the Office of Intelligence, Security and Emergency Response

    49 C.F.R. § 1.45   Cited 12 times

    The Director of Intelligence, Security, and Emergency Response is delegated authority to: (a) Carry out the functions related to emergency preparedness and response vested in the Secretary by the following authorities: 49 U.S.C. 101 and 301 ; Executive Order 12148, as amended ("Federal Emergency Management"); Executive Order 12656 ("Assignment of Emergency Preparedness Responsibilities") (as amended; see Executive Order 13286); Executive Order 12742 ("National Security Industrial Responsiveness");

  16. Section 604.3 - Definitions

    49 C.F.R. § 604.3   Cited 6 times

    All terms defined in 49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq. are used in their statutory meaning in this part. Other terms used in this part are defined as follows: (a)"Federal Transit Laws" means 49 U.S.C. 5301 et seq. , and includes 23 U.S.C. 103(e)(4) , 142(a) , and 142(c) , when used to provide assistance to public transit agencies for purchasing buses and vans. (b)"Administrator" means the Administrator of the Federal Transit Administration or his or her designee. (c)"Charter service" means, but does not include

  17. Section 604.1 - Purpose

    49 C.F.R. § 604.1   Cited 3 times
    Implementing 49 U.S.C. § 5323(d)

  18. Section 604.50 - Judicial review of a final decision and order

    49 C.F.R. § 604.50   Cited 3 times

    (a) A person may seek judicial review in an appropriate United States District Court of a final decision and order of the Administrator as provided in 5 U.S.C. 701 - 706 . A party seeking judicial review of a final decision and order shall file a petition for review with the Court not later than 60 days after a final decision and order is effective. (b) The following do not constitute final decisions and orders subject to judicial review: (1) FTA's decision to dismiss a complaint as set forth in

  19. Section 601.32 - Petitions for rulemaking or exemptions

    49 C.F.R. § 601.32   Cited 1 times

    (a) Any interested person may petition the Administrator to establish, amend, or repeal a rule, or for a permanent or temporary exemption from FTA rules as allowed by law. (b) Each petition filed under this section must: (1) Be submitted in duplicate to the Administrator, Federal Transit Administration, 400 Seventh Street, SW., Washington, DC 20590; (2) State the name, street and mailing addresses, and telephone number of the petitioner; if the petitioner is not an individual, state the name, street

  20. Section 604.11 - Petitions to the Administrator

    49 C.F.R. § 604.11   Cited 1 times

    (a) A recipient may petition the Administrator for an exception to the charter service regulations to provide charter service directly to a customer for: (1) Events of regional or national significance; (2) Hardship (only for non-urbanized areas under 50,000 in population or small urbanized areas under 200,000 in population); or (3) Unique and time sensitive events (e.g., funerals of local, regional, or national significance) that are in the public's interest. (b) The petition to the Administrator

  21. Section 604.13 - Registration of private charter operators

    49 C.F.R. § 604.13   Cited 1 times

    (a) Private charter operators shall provide the following information at http://www.fta.dot.gov/laws/leg_reg_179.html to be considered a registered charter provider: (1) Company name, address, phone number, e-mail address, and facsimile number; (2) Federal and, if available, state motor carrier identifying number; (3) The geographic service areas of public transit agencies, as identified by the transit agency's zip code, in which the private charter operator intends to provide charter service; (4)

  22. Section 604.29 - Incomplete complaints

    49 C.F.R. § 604.29

    If a complaint is not dismissed under §604.28, but is deficient as to one or more of the requirements set forth in §604.27, the Office of the Chief Counsel may dismiss the complaint within 20 days after receiving it. Dismissal shall be without prejudice and the complainant may re-file after amendment to correct the deficiency. The Chief Counsel's dismissal shall include the reasons for the dismissal without prejudice. 49 C.F.R. § 604.29