Case law

Winfield v. United States

652 A.2d 608 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1994

In this context, the term “clearly link” has been defined as follows: What we mean by “clearly link,” as used first by this court in Brown [v. … Watson, supra, 612 A.2d at 182 ; Brown, supra, 409 A.2d at 1097 .

1776 K Street Associates v. District of Columbia

446 A.2d 1113 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1982

See Schmidt v. District of Columbia, Tax Docket 2628 (January 2, 1979). … See District of Columbia v. Green, D.C.App., 310 A.2d 848 (1973). .

In re Phillips

871 A.2d 513 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2005

Brown v. Brown, 384 A.2d 632, 632 (D.C.1977). We noted that “a statute which sets forth a procedure by which a person can petition a court for a change of name ... [does] not abrogate the common law right.”

Gant v. United States

83 A.2d 439 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1951

Appellant’s argument is completely answered by the case of Josey v. United States, 77 U.S.App.D.C 321, 135 F.2d 809, 810 , similar in many respects to the present one. … There, as here, reliance was had on the case of Brown v.

Committee for Voluntary Prayer v. Wimberly

704 A.2d 1199 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1997

See Everson v. Board of Education, 330 U.S. 1 , 67 S.Ct. 504 , 91 L.Ed. 711 (1947); Zorach v. Clauson, 343 U.S. 306 , 72 S.Ct. 679 , 96 L.Ed. 954 (1952). … In Watson v.

Citizens Committee to Save Historic Rhodes Tavern v. District of Columbia Department of Housing & Community Development

432 A.2d 710 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 29, 1981

See Wheeler v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 85, 90 (1978). … See generally Lafayette Park Baptist Church v. Board of Adjustment of St. Louis, 599 S.W.2d 61, 66 (Mo.App.1980). A developer should be required to show that all reasonable alternatives were considered.

News World Communications, Inc. v. Thompsen

878 A.2d 1218 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2005

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 108 F.Supp.2d 12, 15 (D.D.C.2000), and we therefore review de novo the trial court’s resolution of this issue. … Board of Educ., 65 Misc.2d 418 , 317 N.Y.S.2d 486, 489 (N.Y.Sup.Ct. 1971). 392 F.3d at 622-23 (citations omitted).

Jackson v. Capital Transit Co.

38 A.2d 108 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 1944

The Transit Company relies upon Brown v. … MacLachlan v. Perry, 63 App.D.C. 24 , 68 F.2d 769 ; Feiffer v. Mann, 64 App.D.C. 230 , 76 F.2d 1000 . Dumas v. Clayton, 32 App.D.C. 566 ; Bradley v.

Waverly Taylor, Inc. v. Polinger

583 A.2d 179 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1990

On November 1, 1979, MDA applied to the Board of Zoning Adjustment (“BZA” or “Board”) for a special exception to develop the land. … Also, in Kudon v. f.m.e.

Intercounty Construction Corp. v. District of Columbia

443 A.2d 29 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 1982

Accord, Blount Brothers Construction Co. v. United States, 171 Ct.Cl. 478 , 346 F.2d 962 (1965); WPC Enterprises Inc. v. … Beacon Construction Co. v.

Logan v. United States

591 A.2d 850 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 21, 1991

Brown, 729 S.W.2d 224, 225-26 (Mo.Ct.App.1987); State v. Wakeman, 231 Neb. 66, 73-75 , 434 N.W.2d 549, 555-56 (Neb.1989); State v. Oliver, 230 Neb. 864, 866-70 , 434 N.W.2d 293, 296-97 (Neb.1989); Babbs v. … State, 739 S.W.2d 646, 649-50 (Tex.App.1987); Brown v. State, 692 S.W.2d 146, 149-50 (Tex.App.1985), aff’d, 757 S.W.2d 739 (Tex.Crim.App.1988) (en banc); Lopez v. State, 654 S.W.2d 521, 523-24 (Tex.App.1983); Cole v.

Filippo v. REAL ESTATE COM'N OF DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

223 A.2d 268 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1966

A governor and a board of public works were also provided for. … Board of Commissioners, November 30, December 3, 1962).

In re Jones

899 A.2d 754 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 4, 2006

See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Jones, 541 Pa. 622 , 664 A.2d 1355 (1995). … , he has taken no exception to the Board’s recommendation.

McGehee v. Maxfield

256 A.2d 576 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1969

For the following year, Sharon remained with appellee in Texas and New Mexico, while Laurion boarded at St. Alban’s School. … Kemp v. Kemp, D.C.App., 206 A.2d 731, 732 (1965); Ritz v. Ritz, D.C.App., 197 A.2d 155, 157 (1964).

Cofield v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2023

Union, Local #6 v. D.C. Pub. … The OEA Board affirmed the AJ’s decision. Id. Neither the AJ nor the OEA Board considered whether OEA had jurisdiction to consider a claim asserting a violation of priority reemployment rights.

Hopkins v. Barnum

12 F. Cas. 491 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1854

The point being the same which was decided by Judge Cranch in the year 1842 in the case of Pomeroy v. … Brown, for the appellee.

Dingwall v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority

800 A.2d 686 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 30, 2002

See, e.g., Campbell v. … Armory Board also stated that the Board will be "subject to all laws applicable" to the other agencies and instrumentalities of the District government. This is precisely why the division's reliance on Downs v.

Medhin v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2024

Roberts v. … Tinsley v. United States, 868 A.2d 867, 883 (D.C. 2005) (Glickman, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part) (quoting Brown v. United States, 726 A.2d 149, 154 (D.C. 1999)).

United States v. Jackson

528 A.2d 1211 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 1987

State v. Brown, supra, 318 A.2d at 258 ; see State v. … Commonwealth v. Lewis, supra, 409 N.E.2d at 773 ; State v. Young, supra note 11, 390 A.2d at 562 (Schreiber, Jr., concurring) (citation omitted); State v. Brown, supra, 318 A.2d at 260 .

Harris v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

476 A.2d 1111 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1984

Wallace v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, 294 A.2d 177, 179 (D.C.1972) (quoting Consolidated Edison Co. v. NLRB, 305 U.S. 197, 229 , 59 S.Ct. 206, 217 , 83 L.Ed. 126 (1938)). … Lawlor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 37 Pa.Commw. 380, 385, 391 A.2d 8, 11 (1978) (language used by employer lacked the immediacy and finality of a “firing”); Yasgur v.