Case law

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.

Au Yi Lau v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

555 F.2d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 28, 1977

Simmons v. … v.

Turlock Irrigation District v. FERC

36 F.4th 1179 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 17, 2022

FERC distinguished the California Board’s denials without prejudice from Hoopa Valley Tribe v. FERC, 913 F.3d 1099 (D.C. … Each time the California Board denied certification, the Board “act[ed]” within the meaning of section 401(a)(1). See N.Y. State Dep’t of Env’t Conservation v. FERC, 884 F.3d 450, 456 (2d Cir. 2018); N.Y.

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.

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.

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.

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 3-89 Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Union Carbide Corporation, Intervenor

405 F.2d 1111 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 3, 1968

In support of its conclusions, the Board correctly relies upon NLRB v. … Co. v. NLRB, supra. The Board’s decision and order is therefore Affirmed.

William David Hensley v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

655 F.2d 264 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 17, 1981

O’Leary v. Brown-Pacific-Maxon, Inc., [ 340 U.S. *282 504 ] 508 [ 71 S.Ct. 470, 472 , 95 L.Ed. 483 ] (1951). O’Keeffe v. … Banks v.

Americans for Clean Energy v. Environmental Protection Agency

864 F.3d 691 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 28, 2017

Before: BROWN, KAVANAUGH, and MILLETT, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge KAVANAUGH. … In Part V, we consider and reject National Biodiesel Board’s contention that EPA violated its statutory authority when interpreting and applying the cellulosic waiver provision.

Hood River Distillers, Inc. v. NLRB

130 F.4th 204 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 7, 2025

Co. v. NLRB, 99 F.3d 413, 419 (D.C. Cir. 1996); cf. Schneider v. Kissinger, 412 F.3d 190, 200 n.1 (D.C. … Under that deferential standard, we must “affirm the Board’s findings unless no reasonable factfinder could find as [the Board] did.” Wendt Corp. v. NLRB, 26 F.4th 1002, 1008 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (cleaned up).

Robert Franklin v. District of Columbia

168 F.3d 1360 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 22, 1999

While the panel correctly ruled that Sandin v. … (We specifically left the applicability of Sandin to administrative segregation hearings open in Brown v. Plant, 131 *1362 F.3d 163 (D.C.Cir.1997)).

International Association of MacHinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Atlantic Technical Services Corp., Intervenor. Atlantic Technical Services Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board International Association Ofmachinists and Aerospace Workers, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

498 F.2d 680 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 7, 1974

P 10,001 INTERNATIONAL ASSOCIATION OF MACHINISTS AND AEROSPACE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Atlantic Technical Services Corp., Intervenor. … Tom-A-Hawk Transit, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 7th Cir. 1969, 419 F.2d 1025 ; Makela Welding, Inc. v. N.L.R.B., 6th Cir. 1967, 387, F.2d 40 2 See e.g., N.L.R.B. v. Richard W.

Braniff Airways, Inc., a Corporation v. Civil Aeronautics Board, , American Airlines, Inc., Intervenor. Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, American Airlines, Inc., United States of America, Delta Air Lines, Inc., City of Kansas City, Missouri and Chamber of Commerce of Greater Kansas City, Intervenors. Allegheny Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, American Airlines, Inc. And Delta Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, American Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc. And City of Kansas City, Missouri, Intervenors. Ozark Air Lines, Inc., a Corporation v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Delta Air Lines, Inc. And American Airlines, Inc., Intervenors

581 F.2d 846 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 1978

581 F.2d 846 189 U.S.App.D.C. 68 BRANIFF AIRWAYS, INC., a corporation, Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent * , American Airlines, Inc., Intervenor. CONTINENTAL AIR LINES, INC., Petitioner, v. … ALLEGHENY AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent, American Airlines, Inc. and Delta Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, 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.

United States v. McCoy, Joann

242 F.3d 399 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 16, 2001

Toucet v. … United States v.

United States v. Ginyard, Sean

444 F.3d 648 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 7, 2006

Oregon, 406 U.S. 404 (1972), and Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356 (1972)), and restricts the exercise of Rule 23(b) dismissals. In United States v. Brown, 823 F.2d 591 (D.C. … Brown, 823 F.2d at 595-96; United States v. Thomas, 116 F.3d 606, 620 (2d Cir. 1997). Contrary to the views of the parties, Brown, 823 F.2d 591, does not control the outcome of this appeal.

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.”

Bob's Tire Co., Inc. v. NLRB

980 F.3d 147 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 20, 2020

Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 213 (1964). This case involves an unfair labor practice charge filed by the National Labor Relations Board (“Board”) against Bob’s Tire Company, Inc. (“Petitioner” or “Bob’s”). … Corp. v. NLRB, 379 U.S. 203, 215 (1964).

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Dep't of State

373 F. Supp. 3d 142 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 13, 2019

Brown, the Deputy Assistant Secretary for Intelligence Policy and Coordination in State's Bureau of Intelligence and Research. … Brown explains in detail why this is so.

James Wilkett, D/B/A Wilkett Trucking Company v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America

710 F.2d 861 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 24, 1983

is or will be required by the present or future public convenience and necessity.’ ” Bowman Transportation, Inc. v. … Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Co. v. Wichita Board of Trade, 412 U.S. 800, 806-09 , 93 S.Ct. 2367, 2374-75 , 37 L.Ed.2d 350 (1973); West Coast Media, Inc. v. FCC, 695 F.2d 617, 620-21 (D.C.Cir.1982).