The phrase "applicable to the present case" is correct and usable in written English.
You can use it when discussing whether a rule, law, or principle is relevant to the situation at hand.
Example: "The regulations outlined in the document are applicable to the present case and must be followed."
Alternatives: "relevant to the current situation" or "pertinent to this case".
However, none of these cases is applicable to the present case.
The reasons for such an exception are obvious, and it is just as obvious that such reasons are not applicable to the present case.
These principles are applicable to the present case, and show that it is not within the rule forbidding a suit against the United States except with its consent.
Whether some of those decisions have gone too far or have given wrong reasons it is unnecessary to inquire; the principle applicable to the present case seems to us plain.
In both of these cases it is the duty of that government to see that he may exercise this right freely, and to protect him from violence while so doing, or on account of so doing.' This language is as applicable to the present case as it is to that.
The principles of law applicable to the issue are the same in both cases, and the declaration of the court in the Tameling Case, that this was matter for the consideration of congress, and it deemed itself concluded by the action of that body, is as applicable to the present case as it was to that.
Under the facts which we have stated and upon which the court below decided the case, we think the law applicable to the present situation is well settled by previous decisions of this court.
Criticisms applicable to his study are likewise applicable to the present study.
Of course, the present recommendations are most applicable to the present tasks and experimental instantiations.
Rosen (see, e.g., Burgess and Rosen, 1997) doubts that there is any good reason to accept Ockham's razor, and Balaguer (1998a) argues that even if we accept it, there are reasons to think that it is not applicable in the present case.
And as the strong dissent by the American judge and Holocaust survivor Tom Buergenthal pointed out, the Court came to its preposterous conclusion that "the right of legitimate or inherent self-defense is not applicable in the present case" without considering "the deadly terrorist attacks to which Israel is being subjected".
