Case law

Caterair International v. National Labor Relations Board

22 F.3d 1114 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 29, 1994

Additionally, we must accept the ALJ’s credibility determinations, as they are adopted by the Board, unless they are patently without basis in the record. See NLRB v. … Sullivan Indus, v. NLRB, 957 F.2d 890, 903 (D.C.Cir.1992); Williams Enterprises v.

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.

Schramm v. Physical Therapists Examining Board

394 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 16, 1967

V 1966), their respective applications having been denied, the District of Columbia Court of Appeals having affirmed, and review having been sought in this court, where the said cases came on to be heard on the records on … had not unfairly denied the pending applications by misapplication of the basic statute; and this court being further satisfied that the rulings of the said Board and of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals are not

Guardsmark, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

475 F.3d 369 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 2, 2007

Cal. v. NLRB, 335 F.3d 1079, 1088 (D.C. Cir. 2003) (citing the Board’s “mere maintenance” rule). … Stanford Hosp., 325 F.3d at 338 (citing Beth Israel Hosp. 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.

American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

359 F.2d 624 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 2, 1966

SEC v. … Gonzalez v. Freeman, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 180 , 334 F.2d 570 (1964); Pollack v.

United States v. Civil Aeronautics Board

511 F.2d 1315 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 23, 1975

.” 39 In Pillai v. … In American Airlines v.

Eastern Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

185 F.2d 426 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 23, 1950

Alabama Power Co. v. Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 , 58 S.Ct. 300 , 82 L.Ed. 374 ; Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. Tennessee Valley Authority, 306 U.S. 118 , 59 S.Ct. 366 , 83 L.Ed. 543 . Cf. Perkins v. … American Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 178 F.2d 903, 906 . 4 .. On July 29', 1948 Capital filed its verified application for exemption.

Aggregate Industries v. National Labor Relations Board

824 F.3d 1095 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 10, 2016

v. … In NLRB v.

Patterson v. D. C. Board of Parole

551 F.2d 467 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 29, 1977

551 F.2d 467 179 U.S.App.D.C. 281 Patterson v. D. C. Board of Parole No. 74-1920 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 3/29/77 1 D.C.D.C. 2 AFFIRMED *

Press Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

118 F.2d 937 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 24, 1941

Labor Board, 7 Cir., 102 F.2d 949, 956 ; Labor Board v. Sunshine Mining Co., 9 Cir., 110 F.2d 780, 786 ; Montgomery Ward & Co. v. Labor Board, 7 Cir., 107 F.2d 555, 559 ; Humble Oil & Refining Co. v. … Labor Board, 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 85, 92 ; Continental Box Co. v. Labor Board, 5 Cir., 113 F.2d 93, 96, 97 ; Midland Steel Products Co. v. Labor Board, 6 Cir., 113 F.2d 800, 804 ; Martel Mills Corporation v.

Karl Gallant v. National Labor Relations Board

26 F.3d 168 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 17, 1994

Halperin v. CIA, 629 F.2d 144, 148 (D.C.Cir.1980); see also McGehee v. CIA, 697 F.2d 1095, 1102 (D.C.Cir.1983). … Id. at 1490 ; see also Tax Analysts v.

Delfani v. U.S. Capitol Guide Board

198 F. App'x 9 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 22, 2006

It is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Order of the District Court in Delfani v. U.S. Capitol Guide Board, Civil Action No. 03-0949(RWR), 2005 WL 736644 , at *1, 2005 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 5661 , at *1 (D.D.C.

American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

365 F.2d 939 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 19, 1966

365 F.2d 939 AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., et al., Petitioners, v. … was to be left to the Board; and second, that this court's decision in American Airlines, Inc., et al. v.

Childs v. United States Board of Parole

511 F.2d 1270 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 1974

Reference to that decision in United States Board of Parole v. … As we have seen the following decisions have required reasons to be stated: Fischer v. Cahill; Monks v. New Jersey State Parole Board; King v.

Cintas Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

482 F.3d 463 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 16, 2007

Id; see Adtranz ADB Daimler- *466 Benz Transp. v. … Cal. v.

Shelton v. United States Board of Parole

388 F.2d 567 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 1967

Shelton v. United States Board of Parole, No. 20591, infra. 2. … Smith v. Rivers, No. 20685, infra. 12 *575 Reversed and remanded for proceedings consistent with this opinion. No. 20,685 Smith v. Rivers No. 20,686 White v. United States Board of Parole No. 20,687 Jacobs v.

Frontier Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

259 F.2d 808 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 1958

Civil Aeronautics Board, 100 U.S.App.D.C. 184 , 243 F.2d 607 (1957) ; United Air Lines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 97 U.S.App.D.C. 42 , . United Air Lines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, supra note 1. . … North American Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 55 , 237 F.2d 209 (D.C.Cir.1956).

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.