Case law

Asika v. Ashcroft

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Mar 29, 2004

We have no jurisdiction to consider this argument, however, because Asika failed to make it before the Board and, therefore, failed to exhaust "all administrative remedies." See 8 U.S.C. § 1252(d); Gallanosa v. … See, e.g., Morales v. Yeutter, 952 F.2d 954, 956 (7th Cir. 1991); Fulgencio v. INS, 573 F.2d 596, 598 (9th Cir. 1978); Quintana v.

Gantt v. Whitaker

57 F. App'x 141 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 23, 2003

In response to these calls, Deputy Brown was dis- patched to the vicinity but found no one meeting the description. … Brown was dispatched to talk with Johnson. Johnson informed Brown that a man identifying himself as Gantt and driving a blue minivan had attempted to sell him a wireless alarm system earlier that day.

National Labor Relations Board v. Brunswick Electric Membership Corporation

991 F.2d 790 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 16, 1993

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. BRUNSWICK ELECTRIC MEMBERSHIP CORPORATION, Respondent. No. 92-2223. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. … Huizinga Cartage Co. v.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Lamphier

714 F.2d 331 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 4, 1983

State Board of Health, State Health Commissioner, Plaintiff-Intervenor, Appellees, v. James LAMPHIER, Mrs. James (Janet A.) Lamphier, Defendants, Appellants. No. 82-1631. United States Court of Appeals, Fourth Circuit. … Just as we recently held in Thomason v.

Myers v. Town of Landis

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 20, 1997

The court held, as a matter of law, (1) that Myers's "speech," both to Bryant and before the Board, addressed, at its core, matters of public concern, see Pickering v. … Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563, 574 (1968); and (2) that the town's interest in "the effective and efficient fulfillment of its responsibilities to the public," Connick v.

Thalhimer v. Commissioner

62 F.2d 703 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 10, 1933

See Sadowsky v. Anderson (D. C.) 25 F.(2d) 1014 , construing somewhat similar provisions of the act of 1918. In introducing the provisions of section 229 as amendment 354 of H. R. 8245, Senator Frelinghuysen said: “Mr. … The decision of the Board will be affirmed. Affirmed.

Ernestine Atkins Ella L. Spruill Doretha B. Stokes Shernita Washington Simon R. Miller Maurice Steingold, in Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. William A. Robinson, Individually and as Tie-Breaker for Board of Supervisors, Greensville Co., Va. John W. Woodruff, Jr. Peggy A. Wiley Garland P. Faison Charles A. Sabo, All Individually and as Members of Bd. Of Supervisors of Greensville Co., Va. County of Greensville, Va. Virginia Housing Development Authority United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, Ernestine Atkins Ella L. Spruill Doretha B. Stokes Shernita Washington Simon R. Miller Maurice Steingold, in Their Own Behalf and on Behalf of All Others Similarly Situated v. William A. Robinson, Individually and as Tie-Breaker for Board of Supervisors, Greensville Co., Va. John W. Woodruff, Jr. Peggy A. Wiley Garland P. Faison Charles A. Sabo, All Individually and as Members of Bd. Of Supervisors of Greensville Co., Va. County of Greensville, Va. Virginia Housing Development Authority United States Department of Housing and Urban Development

733 F.2d 318 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 30, 1984

See Smith v. Town of Clarkton, 682 F.2d 1055 (4th Cir.1982); Metropolitan Housing Development Corp. v. … EEOC v.

Josephat Mua v. Board of Education of PG Co.

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 26, 2018

BOARD OF EDUCATION OF PRINCE GEORGE’S COUNTY, MARYLAND, Defendant - Appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the District of Maryland, at Greenbelt. Peter J. … Accordingly, we grant Mua’s motions and affirm the district court’s order. * See Mua v. Bd. of Educ. of Prince George’s Cty., Md., No. 8:11-cv-01198-PJM (D. Md. Aug. 1, 2017); see also United States v.

Shao Yong Jiang v. Gonzales

126 F. App'x 127 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 19, 2005

We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion to reopen. … . § 1003.2 (a) (2004) (grant or denial of motion to reopen is within the discretion of the Board); INS v. Doherty, 502 U.S. 314, 323-24 , 112 S.Ct. 719 , 116 L.Ed.2d 823 (1992); Stewart v.

West Virginia CWP Fund v. Director

604 F. App'x 323 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jun 16, 2015

§§ 901-945 (2012). * Our review of the record discloses that the AL J’s decision is based upon substantial evidence and that the' Board’s decision is without reversible error. … This case was in abeyance pending the decision in Hobet Mining LLC v. Epling, 783 F.3d 498 (4th Cir.2015), which was argued in seri-atim with W. Va. CWP Fund v. Bender, 782 F.3d 129 (4th Cir.2015).

Spedden v. Koenig

78 F. 504 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 2, 1897

The law of Maryland is settled by Pentz v. … Thomas v.

Yeager Neil Kyle v. Swift & Company, a Corporation, and the Great Atlantic and Pacific Tea Company, a Corporation

229 F.2d 887 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Feb 7, 1956

As said in Wilkerson v. … Webb v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., 121 W.Va. 115 , 2 S.E.2d 898 . And see Swift & Company v. Blackwell, 4 Cir., 84 F.2d 130 , a decision of this court applying the general law to a case arising in Virginia.

Amadi v. Gonzales

124 F. App'x 806 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 1, 2005

PER CURIAM: Uche Amadi petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (Board) denying his motion to reconsider and reopen. … grant or denial of a motion to reopen or reconsider is within the Board’s discretion); INS v.

United States v. David Wayne Williams

974 F.2d 480 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 27, 1992

United States v. Blackwood, 913 F.2d 139, 142 (4th Cir.1990); United States v. Cochrane, 896 F.2d 635, 637 (1st Cir.), cert. denied, 496 U.S. 929 , 110 S.Ct. 2627 , 110 L.Ed.2d 647 (1990); United States v. … Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 , 103 S.Ct. 1535, 1543 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 (1983) (plurality opinion). The probable cause standard “does not demand showing that such a belief be correct or more likely true than false.”

Benson v. Walker

274 F. 622 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · May 4, 1921

Railroad Co. v. Husen, 95 U. S. 465, 470, 471 ; Mugler v. Kansas, 123 U. S. 623, 661 ; Lawton v. Steele, 152 U. S. 133, 136 ; Atkin v. Kansas, 191 U. S. 207, 223 ; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11, 27 . … In the re *625 cent case of Dobbins v. Los Angeles, 195 U.

United States v. Robert Kenneth Bush

450 F.2d 306 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Nov 4, 1971

Bush urges that the local board did not make the sort of fact-finding statement as required in post induction cases. United States v. Broyles, 423 F.2d 1299 (4th Cir. 1970). … Guided by Ehlert, supra, we held in United States v.

Hamlet Ice Co. v. Fleming

127 F.2d 165 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 13, 1942

Santa Cruz Fruit Packing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 303 U.S. 453, 463 , 58 S.Ct. 656 , 82 L.Ed. 954 ; Illinois Natural Gas Co. v. Central Illinois Pub. Serv. Co., 62 S.Ct. 384 , 86 L.Ed.-; Currin v. … Wallace, 306 U.S. 1 , 59 S.Ct. 379 , 83 L.Ed. 441 ; Mulford v. Smith, 307 U.S. 38 , 59 S.Ct. 648 , 83 L.Ed. 1092 ; National Labor Relations Board v.

Matthews ex rel. Matthews v. Davis

742 F.2d 825 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Aug 30, 1984

of Education v. … Hendrick Hudson District Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 , 102 S.Ct. 3034 , 73 L.Ed.2d 690 (1982). . A stipulation of facts was also filed.

Abu-Bakar v. Holder

320 F. App'x 179 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Apr 6, 2009

PER CURIAM: Kareem Abu-Bakar, a native and citizen of Nigeria, petitions for review of an order of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“Board”) denying his motion to reopen. … We have reviewed the record and the Board’s order and find that the Board did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion as untimely. See 8 C.F.R. § 1003.2 (c)(2) (2008); Mosere v.

John P. Stover v. Consolidation Coal Company Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, United States Department of Labor

45 F.3d 427 · Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit · Jan 10, 1995

Thorn v. … Finally, since the Board and ALJ correctly found that Stover's failure to prove pneumoconiosis renders all other issues moot, see Napier v.