Case law

Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Bostic

581 F. App'x 291 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 20, 2014

Our review of the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal discloses that the Board’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and is without reversible error. … Accordingly, we deny the petition for review for the reasons stated by the Board. Clinchfield Coal Co. v. Bostic, No. 13-0046-BLA (BRB Sept. 25, 2013).

Koenick v. Felton

190 F.3d 259 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 20, 1999

See Brogan v. Holland, 105 F.3d 158, 161 (4th Cir. 1997). We must affirm if the case presents no genuine issues of material fact and the Board is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. See Roe v. … Everson v. Board of Educ., 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947) (citation omitted). There is much confusion, however, about how to apply this broad principle in specific cases.

Izuchukwu Ozurumba v. Pamela Bondi

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 2, 2025

“We review the [Board]’s legal conclusions, including the question of whether the [Board] has applied the proper standard of review, de novo.” Ibarra Chevez v. … However, because “generally we may only affirm on the grounds relied upon by the Board,” Herrera-Martinez v. Garland, 22 F.4th 173, 180 n.1 (4th Cir. 2022) (quoting Yanez-Marquez v.

City of Parkersburg v. Baltimore & O. R.

296 F. 74 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 14, 1923

Marsh v. Fulton County, 10 Wall. 676 , 19 L. Ed. 1040 ; Loan Association v. Topeka, 20 Wall. 655 , 22 L. Ed. 455 ; Parkersburg v. Brown, 106 U. S. 487, 501 , 1 Sup. Ct. 442, 27 L. Ed. 238 ; Daviess County v. … Conery v. New Orleans Waterworks Co., 41 La. Ann. 910 , 7 South. 8 ; Board of Councilmen v. Capital Gas & Electric Light Co. (Ky ) 29 S. W. 855 ; Town of Cannan v. Enfield Village Fire District, 74 N.

Northeastern Const. Co. v. City of Winston-Salem

83 F.2d 57 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 6, 1936

In the case of Iselin v. … Hedgpeth, 172 N.C. 310 , 90 S.E. 314 ; Cozart v. Herndon, 114 N.C. 252 , 19 S.E. 158 ; Bank v. Miller, 106 N.C. 347 , 11 S.E. 321 ; Spruill v. Trader, 50 N.C. 39 ; Standard Sand & Gravel Co. v.

Michael Thompson v. Fairfax County School Board

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jul 18, 2019

FAIRFAX COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia, at Alexandria. Leonie M. … See Jackson v. Lightsey, 775 F.3d 170, 177 (4th Cir. 2014) (“The informal brief is an important document; under Fourth Circuit rules, our review is limited to issues preserved in that brief.”).

United States v. James Adam Wood

454 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 1972

Merritt v. … the Board; 32 C.F.R. § 1604.27 only demands that the Local Board “keep minutes of each of its meetings”.

Ardbern Co. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

120 F.2d 424 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 10, 1941

The Board held in Anglo-American Direct Tea Trading Co. v. Commissioner, 38 B. T. … Riley Investment Co. v. Commissioner, 311 U.S. 55 , 61 S.Ct. 95 , 85 L.Ed. -, and Buttolph v.

Runnebaum v. NationsBank of Maryland, N.A.

123 F.3d 156 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 15, 1997

See Byrne v. Board of Educ., 979 F.2d 560, 564 (7th Cir.1992); see also Forrisi v. … INS v.

John R. Jones v. W. K. Cunningham, Jr., Superintendent of Virginia State Penitentiary

294 F.2d 608 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 14, 1961

There, a Virginia parolee, confined in Ohio, sought a writ of habeas corpus directed to the Director of the Virginia Parole Board for the purpose of removing a detainer filed by the Virginia Parole Board with Ohio prison … Section 53-264 of Virginia’s code provides that its prison official shall release “into the custody of the Parole Board” any prisoner subject to parole when ordered to do so by the Parole Board.

Cincinnati Milacron, Ltd. v. M/v American Legend, Her Engines, Boilers, Etc., and United States Lines, Inc.

784 F.2d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 25, 1986

In February 1982 Cincinnati Milacron shipped two milling machines from Felixstowe, England, to Baltimore, Maryland, on board the M/V AMERICAN LEGEND, a vessel owned by U.S. Lines. The machines were damaged in transit. … In Brown & Root, Inc. v. M/V PEISANDER, 648 F.2d 415, 424 (5th Cir.1981), the court ruled that the incorporation by reference of COGSA in the bill of lading was prima facie evidence of fair opportunity.

Heiko v. Colombo Savings Bank

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 10, 2006

Heiko was interested in her posi- tion, and discussed his desire for a promotion with Brown and Lane. In March 2001, however, Lane awarded the Vice President position to Sandy Rubin on Brown’s recommendation. … In July 1999, Heather Brown recommended him for a five percent pay increase, noting that Heiko was "responsible for day-to-day operations" in Loan Administration, and that he was a  HEIKO v.

Frank Western, Jr., and Johnie T. Sinnett v. James D. Hodgson, Secretary Department of Labor

494 F.2d 379 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 20, 1974

Brown v. … Allen v. State Board of Elections, 393 U.S. 544 , 89 S.Ct. 817 , 22 L.Ed.2d 1 (1969); J. I. Case Co. v. Borak, 377 U.S. 426 , 84 S. Ct. 1555 , 12 L.Ed.2d 423 (1965).

Glascock v. Commissioner

104 F.2d 475 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 12, 1939

See Lucas v. Federal Reserve Bank of Richmond, 4 Cir., 59 F.2d 617 ; Maryland Casualty Company v. … Davis v. Anderson, 99 Va. 620 , 39 S.E. 588 ; Stoneburner & Richards v. Motley, 95 Va. 784 , 30 S.E. 364 . The cases of Buck v. Helvering, 9 Cir., 73 F.2d 760 and Commissioner v.

Charles R. Kerns v. Consolidation Coal Company Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

176 F.3d 802 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 18, 1999

When reviewing a decision of the Benefits Review Board, we apply the same standard the Board applies on reviewing an ALJ’s decision. Walker v. Director, OWCP, 927 F.2d 181, 183 (4th Cir.1991). … We note that the Board has recently held that enhancement for delay is appropriate in Black Lung attorney’s fee award cases. See Nelson v.

Sterling Smokeless Coal Company v. Tammy Akers Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

131 F.3d 438 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Dec 17, 1997

Accord Sahara Coal Co. v. … In Grizzle v.

Norfolk Shipbuilding & Drydock Corporation v. Theodore Faulk

228 F.3d 378 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Sep 25, 2000

To determine whether the Board complied with the standard, the Court of Appeals conducts an independent review of the administrative record. Bumble Bee Seafoods v. … See Fulks v.

John Wylie Gaston v. United States

222 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 9, 1955

He was given two hearings by the board, but was unable to convince a single man on that board that he was entitled to exemption on the ground claimed. … See Witmer v. United States, 348 U.S. 375, 381-383 , 75 S.Ct. 392 ; Campbell v. United States, 4 Cir., 221 F.2d 454 ; White v. United States, 9 Cir., 215 F.2d 782 , certiorari denied, 75 S.Ct. 528 .

Sloan v. Hughes

56 F.3d 62 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 25, 1995

Ismail SLOAN, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. William HUGHES; Daniel T. Mahon; Thomas F. Neumayer; Larry W. Huffman; Edward W. Murray; Clarence L. Jackson, Jr.; John A. Brown; Jacqueline F. Fraser; Gail Y. Browne; Lewis W. … Sloan v. Hughes, No. CA-94-114 (W.D.Va. Jan. 17, 1995).

Virginia ex rel. Commissioner v. Marshall

599 F.2d 588 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 30, 1979

The court then discussed the reviewability of the action of the Wage Appeals Board and in view of the presumption of reviewa-bility recognized in Littell v. … Weinstein v.