Case law

A. Eugene RAMEY, Appellant, v. Charles A. BOWSHER, Comptroller General of the United States, Appellee

9 F.3d 133 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 15, 1994

Telecommunications Research & Action Center v. … United States v. Nordic Village, Inc., — U.S. —,—, 112 S.Ct. 1011, 1014-15 , 117 L.Ed.2d 181 (1992); Ruckelshaus v.

Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary, Department of Interior Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma v. Donald P. Hodel, Secretary, Department of Interior Appeal of Caddo Tribe of Oklahoma

788 F.2d 765 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 18, 1986

Brown, Indianapolis, Ind., for appellant in No. 85-5306, Wichita and Affiliated Tribes of Oklahoma. John A. Bryson, Atty., Dept. of Justice, with whom Dirk D. … The jurisdiction of this Board is limited to decision of legal disputes within the Board's competence as defined by Departmental regulation.

AdvancePierre Foods, Inc. v. NLRB

966 F.3d 813 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 2020

Co. v. NLRB, 857 F.3d 877, 881 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). “The Board’s discretion in fashioning remedies under the Act is extremely broad and subject to very limited judicial review.” Fallbrook Hosp. Corp. v. … Because AdvancePierre’s frontal attack on Board precedent was never made to the Board and extraordinary circumstances do not excuse its failure, we cannot reach this argument.7 See Camelot Terrace, Inc. v.

United States v. Ronald James Toms, A/K/A Block

136 F.3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 1998

Harrison, 931 F.2d at 71 ; see also Brown v. United States, 546 A.2d 390, 394 (D.C.1988). The government offers two theories as to Toms’s knowledge. … See, e.g., United States v.

Williams v. Wilkie

320 F. Supp. 3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 13, 2018

Browning v. Clinton , 292 F.3d 235 , 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). I. Subject Matter Jurisdiction Under Rule 12(b)(1), the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing jurisdiction by a preponderance of the evidence. See Lujan v. … Fermin v.

Michael K. Frizelle v. Rodney E. Slater, Secretary of Transportation

111 F.3d 172 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 25, 1997

Decisions of the civilian board are subject to review under § 706 of the Administrative Procedures Act, 5 U.S.C. § 706 . Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1404 (D.C.Cir.1995); Kreis v. … Jolly v.

Paul N. Carlin v. John R. McKean Individually and as a Member of the Board of Governors of the U.S. Postal Service

823 F.2d 620 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 1987

The only mention of this argument in Board of Governors v. … Fletcher v.

Absolute Healthcare v. NLRB

103 F.4th 61 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 2024

Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 216 (1954). … We therefore vacate the portion of the Board’s decision ordering those remedies. See Bozzuto’s Inc. v.

J.G. Kern Enterprises, Inc. v. NLRB

94 F.4th 18 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 2024

This court’s role in reviewing a Board decision is “limited.” Wayneview Care Ctr. v. NLRB, 664 F.3d 341, 348 (D.C. Cir. 2011). … The General Counsel and the Board may use any available theory deemed appropriate to assess unfair labor practice allegations. See, e.g., NLRB v.

Rex v. Federal Aviation Administration

321 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 10, 2009

It is FURTHER ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the petition for review of the December 21, 2007 order of the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) be denied. … The NTSB’s decision is supported by substantial evidence, see Garvey v.

Pan American World Airways, Inc. And Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Sudflug Suddeutsche Fluggesellschaft Mbh, Intervenor. Pan American World Airways, Inc. And Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Robert T. Murphy, Sudflug Suddeutsche Fluggesellschaft Mbh, Intervenor

392 F.2d 483 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 31, 1968

Switchmen's Union [of North America] v. [National] Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 301 [, 64 S.Ct. 95 , 88 L.Ed. 61 ]. … Sparks v. C. A.

Christiana Tah v. Global Witness Publishing, Inc.

991 F.3d 231 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 19, 2021

Brown and Katie Townsend were on the brief for amici curiae Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press and 26 Media Organizations in support of appellees/cross- appellants. … Or put another way, “appellate courts do not sit as self-directed boards of legal inquiry and research, but essentially as arbiters of legal questions presented and argued by the parties before them.” Carducci v.

District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. NLRB

141 F.4th 1279 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 2025

Avecor, Inc. v. … Regal Cinemas, Inc. v. NLRB, 317 F.3d 300, 306–07 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 (1951)). “We review the Board’s procedural rulings for an abuse of discretion.”

Chambers v. Robertson

183 F.2d 144 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 1950

Therefore, any court intervention, to be effective, must be before a decision by the Board or, at least, must be initiated before such decision (compare Aircraft & Diesel Corp. v. … Nor is this a case where final decision, if it is to be effective, should be deferred until after the decision of the Board (Cf. Aircraft & Diesel Equipment Corp. v.

Farmer v. United Electrical, Radio & Machine Workers of America

211 F.2d 36 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 4, 1953

Corp. v. United States, 12 Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States, 13 and Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v. … American Federation of Labor v. National Labor Relations Board, 1940, 308 U.S. 401, 412 , 60 S.Ct 300 , 84 L.Ed. 347 ; and Inland Empire District Council v.

Isbrandtsen Co., Inc. v. United States

211 F.2d 51 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 1, 1954

In its brief the Board explains that General Order 76 was promulgated because “[f]ollowing the decision in Isbrandtsen Co. v. … United States, 1939, 307 U.S. 125, 143-144 , 59 S.Ct. 754 , 83 L.Ed. 1147 ; Phillips v. Securities and Exchange Comm., 2 Cir., 1948, 171 F.2d 180, 183 . . Board’s brief, p. 11. . Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v.

Davis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corp.

734 F.3d 1161 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 2013

The Pilots were represented by counsel throughout the Board proceedings. As to the timing of the Schofield declaration, the Pilots rely on Esch v. Yeutter, 876 F.2d 976, 991 (D.C. … Davis v. PBGC, 815 F. Supp. 2d at 292.

Bayshore Cmty. Hosp. v. Azar

325 F. Supp. 3d 18 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 6, 2018

Hosp. v. … Corp. v.

Veritas Health Servs., Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

895 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 2018

Du Pont De Nemours & Co. v. NLRB , 682 F.3d 65 , 67 (D.C. Cir. 2012). In particular, we defer to the Board's well-reasoned "interpretation of its own precedent," Ceridian Corp. v. NLRB , 435 F.3d 352 , 355 (D.C. … We review the Board's denial of an administrative subpoena for abuse of discretion. See SSC Mystic Operating Co. v. NLRB , 801 F.3d 302 , 330 (D.C. Cir. 2015) ; Joseph T. Ryerson & Son, Inc. v.

Roland Belton v. United States

259 F.2d 811 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 1958

The prosecution called but one eye witness, Wallace Brown. He supported appellant’s claim of self defense. … Rule 37(a) (2) F.R.Crim.P., 18 U.S.C.; Boykin v. Huff, 73 App.D.C. 378 , 121 F.2d 865 ; Williams v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 212 , 188 F.2d 41 ; accord, Shannon v.