Case law

William H. Brown v. Betty Moxley Stevens

331 F.2d 803 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 9, 1964

Boone v. Boone, 80 U.S.App.D.C. 152, 154-155 , 150 F.2d 153, 155-156 (1945). … See Sampsell v. Superior Court, 32 Cal.2d 763 , 197 P.2d 739 (1948); Stansbury, Custody and Maintenance Law Across State Lines, 10 Law and Contemporary Problems 819, 830-831 (1944). 2 . Cf. Maher v.

Dillmon v. NATIONAL TRANSPORTATION SAFETY BOARD

588 F.3d 1085 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 8, 2009

Before: GARLAND, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. … BROWN, Circuit Judge: Petitioner Jack Rondal Dillmon accuses the National Transportation Safety Board (Board) of hypocrisy—saying one thing while doing another.

Sands v. National Labor Relations Board

825 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 17, 2016

The Board’s orders impose continuing obligations that do not cease when the particular offending conduct ends. See NLRB v. … See Gally v. NLRB, 487 F.

Christopher Garvey v. Administrative Review Board

56 F.4th 110 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 23, 2022

Therefore, a court typically applies the terms of the APA when reviewing a Board order. See, e.g., Villanueva v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 743 F.3d 103, 108 (5th Cir. 2014); Welch v. … [This means that, a Board] decision must be upheld if, considering all the evidence, a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion as the [Board].” Allen v. Admin. Rev.

Ohal v. Board of Trustees

100 F. App'x 833 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 2004

Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 (D.C.Cir.1999), is not to the contrary. … That we ultimately found no such “other materially adverse consequences” in Brown does not preclude them presence in this case.

Riffin v. Surface Transportation Board

423 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 27, 2011

This petition for review was considered on the record from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. R. 34(j). … This argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Kessler v. Surface *2 Transportation Board, No. 09-1161, — F.3d-, 2011 WL 893267 (D.C.Cir., Mar. 15, 2011).

Manin v. National Transportation Safety Board

627 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 14, 2011

Adm’r v. Wells, 7 N.T.S.B. 1247, 1249 (1991); see also Adm’r v. Peterson, 6 N.T.S.B. 1306, 1307 n.8 (1989). … Our analysis in these cases drew on the Board’s own interpretation of the intent element of intentional falsification. See id. As we noted, the Board declared in Administrator v.

Riffin v. Surface Transportation Board

364 F. App'x 650 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 2010

As the Board explained in the order under review, if an offeror and an offeree railroad have agreed upon the terms of a transaction in an abandonment proceeding, as they did here, then the Board’s role is only to determine … That the Board did.

Moss v. Civil Aeronautics Board

521 F.2d 298 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 16, 1975

C. v. … It is true that the Board cannot make rates retrospectively, see, *208 e. g., Williams v.

Riffin v. Surface Transportation Board

364 F. App'x 650 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 2010

As the Board explained in the order under review, if an offeror and an offeree railroad have agreed upon the terms of a transaction in an abandonment proceeding, as they did here, then the Board’s role is only to determine … That the Board did.

Carmen v. Surface Transportation Board

170 F.3d 1144 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 2, 1999

In Torres v. … Petitioners appealed to the Surface Transportation Board. The Board affirmed in a decision issued July 31, 1998.

Brown v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

6 App. D.C. 237 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 7, 1895

Shafer v. Stonebraker, 4 Gill & J. 346, 355; 1 Chitt. Pl. (1st ed.) 386. … Spitze v. Balto. & Ohio Railroad Co., 75 Md. 162, 171 ; Fuller v. B. & O. Employees Relief Assn., 62 Md. 433, 436, 438 ; Owens v. B. & O. Railroad Co., 35 Fed. Rep. 715; Martin v. B. & O. Railroad Co., 41 Fed. Rep. 125.

Stewart v. National Labor Relations Board

851 F.3d 21 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 21, 2017

See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196-97 , 67 S.Ct. 1760 , 91 L.Ed. 1995 (1947). Perhaps the Board applied Frito-Lay based on a mistaken assumption that the facts here are no different. … LePage’s 2000, Inc. v. Postal Regulatory Comm’n, 642 F.3d 225, 234-35 (D.C. Cir. 2011). The Board’s footnote might be seen to suggest one other possible rationale for ,its decision.

Brown v. Ohio National Bank

18 App. D.C. 598 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 6, 1901

Cropley v. Vogeler, 2 App. D. C. 28, 32; Bailey v. District of Columbia, 4 App. D. C. 356, 370; Gleason v. Hoeke, 5 App. D. C. 1, 7; Strauss v. Hensey, 7 App. D. C. 289; Pumphrey v. Bogan, 6 App. D. … Derkes, 103 Ind. 520, 524 ; Price v. Jones, 105 Ind. 543, 545 ; Johnston v. Smith, 86 N. C. 498, 501 ; Van Norman v. Barbeon, 54 Minn. 388, 393 ; Gore v. Mason, 18 Me. 84, 86 ; Lambert v.

Roddy v. Civil Aeronautics Board

299 F.2d 136 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 1, 1962

Wilhelmina Pope v. Railroad Retirement Board Edwin Thrash v. Railroad Retirement Board

672 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 12, 1982

See also Gray Panthers v. Schweiker, 652 F.2d 146 (D.C.Cir.1981). … V In summary, the cause is remanded to the district court, which is directed to certify the class as defined above and require the board to notify all of its members of their right to request an oral hearing if they contend

Turner v. National Transportation Safety Board

608 F.3d 12 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 8, 2010

Court’s decision in Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v. … It is also consistent with the Board’s treatment of the similarly silent order in Administrator v. Tanner, 4 N.T.S.B. 1354 (1984).

Victor Hugo Brown v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

775 F.2d 383 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 25, 1985

The principal issue raised by this petition for review is whether the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA or Board), abused its discretion by refusing to reopen the deportation proceedings of petitioner, Victor Hugo Brown. … The Board’s opinion below did not consider whether Mr. Brown had established a prima facie case of continuous presence.

Frederick Powell v. D.C. Parole Board

349 F.2d 715 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 1965

The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of appellee Board. … powers of the Board to second offenders committed pursuant to Section 7237 (d).

Atwell v. Merit Systems Protection Board

670 F.2d 272 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 18, 1981

The Board applied substantively identical reasoning in denying the appeals. Relying either explicitly or by implication on its decision in Atwell v. Department of the Army, MSPB Order No. … See Brief for Atwell Respondents at 13, quoting Rotolo v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 636 F.2d 6, 8 (1st Cir. 1980).