Case law

Irene Raza v. Walter F. Sullivan

432 F.2d 617 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 11, 1971

In Quick v. … Byrne v. Boadle, 1863, 2 H. & C. 722, 159 Eng.Rep. 299. 4 . Even in Brown there was no direction of a verdict at the end of the plaintiff’s ease.

Robert C. Buffkin v. Alum-Co National, Inc.

331 F.2d 96 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 28, 1963

Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178 , 83 S.Ct. 227 , 9 L.Ed.2d 222 (1962); Harris Truck Lines, Inc. v. Cherry Meat Packers, Inc., 371 U.S. 215 , 83 S.Ct. 283 , 9 L.Ed.2d 261 (1962); cf. Gerringer v. … See People of State of New York v. O’Neill, 359 U.S. 1 , 79 S.Ct. 564 , 3 L.Ed.2d 585 (1959). 4 . Engle v.

Circus Circus Casinos, Inc. v. NLRB

961 F.3d 469 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 2020

for assuring that the Board keeps within reasonable grounds,” Universal Camera Corp. v. … In Wright Line, the Board adopted the Supreme Court’s burden-shifting framework from Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v.

Gannett Rochester Newspapers, a Division of Gannett Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Newspaper Guild of Rochester, Local 17, Intervenor

988 F.2d 198 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 26, 1993

Though the Board’s counsel before us disavows this “reaffirmation” rule, the Board’s opinion is before us for review, not the post hoc rationalizations of counsel. See Bowen v. Georgetown Univ. … It may be that that is what the Board intended here. Unfortunately for the Board, we cannot affirm on speculation, or on the rationale of counsel, but only on the decision of the Board. SEC v.

Davidson Hotel Company, LLC v. NLRB

977 F.3d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 23, 2020

First, the Board determines whether the employees in the petitioned-for unit share a community of interest. Id.; Blue Man Vegas, LLC v. NLRB, 529 F.3d 417, 421 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing NLRB v. … The Board is not required to pick the most appropriate unit – only an appropriate one. Dean Transp., Inc. v. NLRB, 551 F.3d 1055, 1063 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Serramonte Oldsmobile, Inc. v.

Division 1142, Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

294 F.2d 264 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 12, 1961

The Board’s Failure to Recite and Rule upon the Union’s Exceptions with Specificity The third major contention urged here is an asserted violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and of the Board’s own Regulations in … The Board’s opinion stated that all exceptions pressed before it had been considered, and this, in our view, is sufficient under the circumstances here, to satisfy any applicable requirement of specific format for the Board

Kenneth Haselwander v. John McHugh

774 F.3d 990 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 2014

The Board’s reasoning in this case is utterly illogical, United States v. Morgan, 393 F.3d 192, 200 (D.C. … However, the Board’s action must be supported by “reasoned decisionmaking.” Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359, 374 (1998) (quoting Motor Vehicle Mfrs. Ass’n of the U.S., Inc. v. State Farm Mut.

Margaret Dong v. Smithsonian Institution, Hirshhorn Museum & Sculpture Garden

125 F.3d 877 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 3, 1997

Energy Research Foundation v. Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board, 917 F.2d 581, 583 (D.C.Cir.1990). … Miles & Co., Inc. v. Brown, 910 F.Supp. 1138, 1159 (E.D.Va.1995) (holding that quasi-government fisheries council “is not an ‘authority' of the U.S. Government because it has no ‘authority’ to do anything”).

Sears, Roebuck and Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission Sears, Roebuck and Company v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission, (Two Cases)

581 F.2d 941 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 26, 1978

Specifically, Brown alleged that Sears had discriminated against job applicants and employees across the nation on the basis of their race, sex, and national origin. 7 The Commission consolidated with Commissioner Brown's … Sears, Roebuck & Co. v.

Eagle County, Colorado v. STB

82 F.4th 1152 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 18, 2023

Loc. 464 v. FERC, 896 F.3d 573, 577 (D.C. Cir. 2018). “Standing is not dispensed in gross,” Davis v. FEC, 554 U.S. 724, 734 (2008) (quoting Lewis v. … We explained in Birckhead v.

Porter v. Shah

606 F.3d 809 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 2010

Kotz’s resume revealed he had represented USAID before the Foreign Service Grievance Board, the Merit Systems Protection Board, the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission and the General Accounting Office, had drafted and … Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 458-59 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (internal quotation omitted). Lion’s involvement in both Porter I and Porter II is, like Marton’s, insufficient by itself to establish pretext.

Independent Insurance Agents of America, Inc. v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, National Association of Professional Insurance Agents v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, National Association of Casualty v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System

835 F.2d 1452 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 29, 1987

NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF PROFESSIONAL INSURANCE AGENTS, et al., Petitioners, v. BOARD OF GOVERNORS OF the FEDERAL RESERVE SYSTEM, Respondent. NATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF CASUALTY, et al., Petitioners, v. … Board of Governors, 468 U.S. 207 , 104 S.Ct. 3003 , 82 L.Ed.2d 158 (1984); Association of Data Processing, Inc. v. Board of Governors, 745 F.2d 677 (D.C.Cir.1984).

Center for Science in the Public Interest v. Donald T. Regan, Secretary of the Treasury

802 F.2d 518 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 26, 1986

Russell v. National Mediation Board, 775 F.2d 1284, 1286 (5th Cir. 1985); Gavette v. Office of Personnel Management, 785 F.2d 1568,1578 (Fed.Cir. 1986) . … See also Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696 , 94 S.Ct. 2006 , 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). 6 . When held up to the statutory language, Rep.'

Hayne v. McIntire

7 App. D.C. 449 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1896

Justice Shepard delivered the opinion of the Court: This is the last of the cases argued and submitted together with No. 465, Pryor v. McIntire, ante, p. 417. … The evidence with respect to the sale is substantially the same as that commented on in the preceding case of Brown v. McIntire, with the exception of the single advertisement referred to-above.

Building Material & Construction Teamsters Union Local No. 216, International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen, & Helpers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, and Bigge Drayage Company, Intervenor. Bigge Drayage Company v. National Labor Relations Board

520 F.2d 172 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 29, 1975

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, and Bigge Drayage Company, Intervenor. BIGGE DRAYAGE COMPANY, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. Nos. 72-2008, 72-2098. … Meat and Highway Drivers, Local 710 v.

Grell v. Trump

330 F. Supp. 3d 311 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 12, 2018

Grell's complaint also vaguely sketches a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act ("APA"), seeking review of an Army Board for Correction of Military Records ("ABCMR") determination. … Browning v. Clinton , 292 F.3d 235 , 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v.

Hugh McKinney v. Christine Wormuth

5 F.4th 42 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 20, 2021

Third, the Board’s decision must demonstrate reasoned decisionmaking. See id. Our review of Board decisions involves “an unusually deferential application of the ‘arbitrary or capricious’ standard.” Kreis v. … McKinney also faults the Board for its brief analysis. The analysis, however, has sufficient clarity for us to discern the Board’s rationale. See Dickson v. Sec’y of Def., 68 F.3d 1396, 1404 (D.C.

Local Union No. 749, International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. National Labor Relations Board

466 F.2d 343 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1972

B. v. … Co. v. [National] Labor [Relations] Board, 186 F.2d 1008 (C.A. 7th Cir.). . . . See also N. L. R. B. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg. Co., 388 U.S. 175, 197, n. 37 , 87 S. Ct. 2001 , 18 L.Ed.2d 1123 (1967); Amalgamated Ass’n etc.

United Transportation Union v. Surface Transportation Board and United States of America, Csx Transportation, Inc., Intervenor. Railway Labor Executives' Association v. Surface Transportation Board and United States of America

114 F.3d 1242 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 13, 1997

P 10,009 UNITED TRANSPORTATION UNION, Petitioner, v. SURFACE TRANSPORTATION BOARD and United States of America, Respondents, CSX Transportation, Inc., Intervenor. … Louis Mackall, V, Attorney, Surface Transportation Board, argued the cause for the respondents. Henri F. Rush, General Counsel, Surface Transportation Board, was on brief. John J. Powers, III, and Robert J.

De Leon v. Rhines

74 F.2d 477 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 3, 1934

Brown, with the assent of Mrs. Dumas, and assumed to pay and disehárge the second-trust note. This claim of the defendants is not supported by the facts or law of the ease. Shepherd v. May, 115 U. S. 505 , 6 S. … Ed. 456 ; Keller v. Ashford, 133 U. S. 610 , 10 S. Ct. 494 , 33 L. Ed. 667 ; Union Mutual Life Ins. Co. v. Hanford, 143 U. S. 187 , 12 S. Ct. 437 , 36 L. Ed. 118 . In Shepherd v.