Case law

National Biodiesel Board v. Environmental Protection Agency

843 F.3d 1010 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 20, 2016

Before: TATEL, BROWN, and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges.  2 Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. … King v. Burwell, 135 S. Ct. 2480, 2489 (2015) (quoting FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000)).

Levi v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp.

528 F. App'x 4 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 14, 2013

See Firestone v. Firestone, 76 F.3d 1205, 1211 (D.C.Cir.1996). And because appellant has not made out a claim for an underlying tort, appellant’s conspiracy claim was also properly dismissed. See Paul v. … See Powell v. District of Columbia, 634 A.2d 403, 406 (D.C.1993).

Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broadcasting Board of Governors

560 F.3d 495 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 3, 2009

KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judge: When the Broadcasting Board of Governors denied promotions to three employees, they sued the Board under the Administrative Procedure Act. … Filebark v. Dep’t of Transp., 555 F.3d 1009, 1010 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63, 66-67 (D.C. Cir. 2005); Graham v. Ashcroft, 358 F.3d 931, 933-36 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Carducci v.

Schwarzman v. National Transportation Safety Board

398 F. App'x 608 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 25, 2010

This petition for review was considered on the record from the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB”) and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C. CIR. R. 34®.

Stanley Spencer v. National Labor Relations Board

712 F.2d 539 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 28, 1983

the Board’s legal arguments. … It is important to recognize that, in this case, we need not speculate much about the Board’s position on the merits of the appellants’ claim. This is so because the Board’s litigation position — grounded on Leedom v.

International Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board

110 F.2d 29 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 20, 1939

In Hamilton-Brown Shoo Co. v. … Labor Relations Board v.

CSX Transportation, Inc. v. Surface Transportation Board

774 F.3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 16, 2014

The Board agreed, finding that CSX had raised “considerable doubts as to the shipper’s ability to satisfy the Board’s market dominance standard.” Total Petrochemicals USA, Inc. v. CSX Transp., Inc., No. … As the Court noted in FTC v.

Cohen v. Board of Trustees of the University

819 F.3d 476 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 22, 2016

BOARD OF TRUSTEES OF THE UNIVERSITY OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, C/O CHAIR, DR. … Superior Court against the Board of Trustees and three university officials alleging, among other things, a violation of his procedural due process rights under the U.S. Constitution.

Midwest Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

564 F.2d 434 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 24, 1977

We are to sustain the Board’s determinations if they are supported by substantial evidence on the record considered as a whole. NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S 278, 85 S.Ct. 980 , 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965); Universal Camera Corp. v. … NLRB v. Brown, supra, 380 U.S. at 287 , 85 S.Ct. 980 ; Mueller Brass Co. v. NLRB, supra, 544 F.2d at 819 .

Chritton v. National Transportation Safety Board

888 F.2d 854 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 27, 1989

E.g., Administrator v. … Administrator v. Austin, 2 N.T.S.B. at 663-664. The Board also correctly concluded that “[Mr.

Lewis v. National Labor Relations Board

350 F.2d 801 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 4, 1965

United Mine Workers v. Pennington, 85 S.Ct. 1585 (June 7, 1965), or (2) require the conclusion that the clause is a “union signatory clause,” District No. 9, Intern. Ass’n of Machinists v. … The Board refused to find compliance since it thought the substitute clause also violated § 8(e). The Board says this decision is not ripe for review. But we express no opinion on that point, see NLRB v.

Brown v. Gesellschaft Fur Drahtlose Telegraphie, M. B. H.

104 F.2d 227 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 13, 1939

H. v. Brown, 64 App.D.C. 357 , 78 F.2d 410 , certiorari denied 296 U.S. 618 , 56 S.Ct. 139 , 80 L.Ed. 439 . 2 Davis v. … Brown, 64 App.D.C. 357, 362 , 78 F.2d 410, 415 , certiorari denied 296 U.S. 618 , 56 S.Ct. 139 , 80 L.Ed. 439 . See Steele v.

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

744 F.2d 868 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 2, 1984

Pope v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, and Thrash v. U.S. Railroad Retirement Board, 672 F.2d 972 (D.C.Cir.1982). We see no need to repeat them. … Pope v. Railroad Retirement Board, 672 F.2d 972, 975 (D.C.Cir.1982).

Sanitary Truck Drivers v. NLRB

45 F.4th 38 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 29, 2022

See Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal., Inc. v. NLRB, 911 F.3d 1195 (D.C. Cir. 2018). … NLRB v. Ingredion Inc., 930 F.3d 509, 514 (D.C. Cir. 2019) (quoting Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951)).

Schlosberg v. District Unemployment Compensation Board

167 F.2d 881 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 21, 1948

V, § 46 — 303(c) (7), 57 Stat. 107 , § 3(c) (7). … The court affirmed the Board’s finding as supported by substantial evidence. D.C.Code (1940), Supp. V, § 46 — 303(c) (10). We agree. Appellants had the burden of proving that they made a timely request.

National Labor Relations Board v. Federal Labor Relations Authority, National Labor Relations Board Union, Intervenor

2 F.3d 1190 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 31, 1993

Board Union. … BATF, 464 U.S. at 97 , 104 S.Ct. at 444 (quoting NLRB v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278, 291-92 , 85 S.Ct. 980, 988 , 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965)).

BNSF Railway Co. v. Surface Transportation Board

526 F.3d 770 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 20, 2008

Co. v. ICC, 985 F.2d 589, 596 (D.C. Cir. 1993). The Board’s rulemaking changed various aspects of the Stand-Alone-Cost test. … Power, Inc. v. FERC, 493 F.3d 239, 260 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Nuvio Corp. v. FCC, 473 F.3d 302, 306 (D.C.

Marilyn M. Fisher v. The Renegotlation Board

473 F.2d 109 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 10, 1972

In granting the Board’s motion for summary judgment, though no reasons were stated, the District Court apparently relied upon Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, 138 U.S. … For a more detailed explanation of the operations of the Board we refer to the recent decision of this court in Bannercraft Clothing Company, Inc. v. Renegotiation Board, 151 U.S.App.D.C. 174 , 466 F.2d 345 (1972). 3 .

BNSF Railway Co. v. Surface Transportation Board

453 F.3d 473 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 16, 2006

The Board’s concern with due process for shippers may be well-founded. See Logan v. … Power Agency v.

BNSF Railway Co. v. Surface Transportation Board

604 F.3d 602 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 11, 2010

Power Coop. v. BNSF Ry. … WFA also called the Board’s attention to the due process requirements identified in Logan v.