D.C. Circuit· 7/8/2008

In Re Core Communications, Inc.

Citations

531 F.3d 849
382 U.S. App. D.C. 120
45 Communications Reg. (P&F) 630
2008 U.S. App. LEXIS 14501
2008 WL 2649636

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

stating that the standard for evaluating a mandamus petition and a claim of unreasonable delay are the same
explaining that, to obtain relief on an unreasonable delay claim, plaintiff must show that issuance of writ of mandamus would be justified
explaining that, to obtain relief on an unreasonable delay claim, plaintiff must show that issuance of writ of mandamus would be justified
noting that it was undisputed that the defendant had a duty to the plaintiff who had secured a remand order
noting that the court had declined to issue the writ after the agency failed to respond to the court’s remand for 3 years, but issuing the writ when the delay reached 6 years
explaining that the first TRAC factor is the “most important factor”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: Tatel, Garland, Griffith

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

230 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

29 cases in this archive are cited by this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Other cases named In Re Core Communications, Inc.

1 other CourtListener record shares this case name.

In Re Core Communications, Inc.
D.C. Circuit· 2006-06-30· cited 42×

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.