Case law

In Re Brown

845 A.2d 519 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 2004

Brown represented to the Board that he proposed to take these courses. 8 . … The Board found that Brown has admitted his misconduct in Bar Docket No. 273-91.

Kabel v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

962 A.2d 919 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2008

The purpose of such review is to ensure “that the Board [has] performed its duty in a ... statutorily correct manner.” Pen-dleton v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 433 A.2d 1102, 1104 (D.C.1981). … See, e.g., Bates v. District of Columbia Bd. of Elections & Ethics, 625 A.2d 891, 893 (D.C.1993). The Board’s interpretation of “affiliated” plainly meets the test of reasonableness.

Kamins v. Board of Elections, District of Columbia

324 A.2d 187 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 1974

Storer v. Brown, 415 U.S. 724, 737 , 94 S.Ct. 1274 , 1282 n. 8, 39 L.Ed.2d 714 (1974). 3 . … E. g., Storer v. Brown, supra, 415 U.S. at 736, 94 S.Ct. at 1282 ; American Party of Texas v. White, supra, 415 U.S. at 773, 94 S.Ct. at 1302 ; Lubin v.

Brown v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

140 A.3d 1144 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2016

See Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 83 A.3d 739, 742, 747-49, 750-52 (D.C.2014). The CRB answered both questions in the affirmative. … See Brown, 83 A.3d at 745-46 . We affirm the Board’s decision.

Williamson v. District of Columbia Board of Dentistry

647 A.2d 389 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1994

Petitioner relies on Goodman v. Ma ryland, 237 Md. 64 , 205 A.2d 53 (1964) and claims that the Board erred by equating the act of obtaining a prescription with the act of obtaining a controlled substance. … The critical question before the Board was whether the summary suspension of the registration had any legal effect for purposes of D.C.Code § 2-3305.14(a)(3), not the term of the suspension. See Arthur v.

Dyer v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board

392 A.2d 1 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 1978

Marshall v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, D.C. App., 377 A.2d 429 (1977). If the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence they are conclusive. Washington Post v. … District Unemployment Compensation Board, D.C.App., 379 A.2d 694 (1977).

Howard University Hospital v. D.C. Department of Employment Services

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2025

Code § 32-1507(a), (d); Brown v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 83 A.3d 739, 749-50 (D.C. 2014). The ALJ determined that Mr. … Brown, 83 A.3d at 749-50.

Joseph v. District of Columbia Board of Medicine

587 A.2d 1085 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 1991

Bender v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 562 A.2d 1205, 1209 (D.C.1989). Accordingly, we must give the Board’s decision substantial weight. Winchester Van Buren Tenants Ass’n v. … At *1090 the very least, the Board could properly conclude that this is so. In Wassermann v.

Brown v. Savings Bank of the Grand Fountain

28 App. D.C. 351 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1906

In the case of Thaw v. Ritchie, 5 Mackey, 228 , the court said: “The last bill of exceptions is peculiar. … See also Langdon v. Evans, 3 Mackey, 1 ; Cureton v. Dargan, 16 S. C. 619; Pennsylvania Co. v. Horton, 132 Ind. 189 , 31 N. E. 45 ; Springfield F. & M. Ins. Co. v. Sea, 21 Wall. 162 , 22 L. ed. 511; Herman v.

Addo v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD ON NURSING

40 A.3d 17 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2012

40 A.3d 17 (2012) ADDO v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA BOARD ON NURSING. No. 10-AA-1608. District of Columbia Court of Appeals. March 30, 2012. DECISION WITHOUT PUBLISHED OPINION Affirmed.

Roberts v. District of Columbia Board of Medicine

577 A.2d 319 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1990

See also Valdes v. … See District of Columbia v.

Berger v. BOARD OF PSYCHOLOGIST EXAMINERS FOR DC

313 A.2d 602 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1973

The Board argues that petitioner cannot raise these questions here, that he is barred by the principle “that one cannot in the same proceeding both assail a statute and rely upon it.” Buck v. … Court in Public Utilities Commission of Cal. v.

Stone v. Board of Examiners & Registrars of Architects

126 A.2d 157 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1956

In Kemp v. … As to the applicability of a statute of limitations to proceedings of this kind see: State Medical Examining Board v. Stewart, 46 Wash. 79 , 89 P. 475 , 11 L.R.A..N.S., 557; State Bar Commission ex rel. Williams v.

In re Brown

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2023

BROWN, ESQUIRE, Respondent. … Brown’s affairs subsequent to the suspension ordered herein, McGavock D. Reed, Jr., Esquire, is appointed to inventory the files of respondent Gary T.

Donahue v. District of Columbia Board of Psychology

562 A.2d 116 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 1989

See Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … See Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. at 2709 .

District Unemployment Compensation Board v. Security Storage Co.

365 A.2d 785 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 21, 1976

Von Stauffenberg v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, D.C.App., 269 A.2d 110, 111 (1970), aff’d. 148 U.S.App.D.C. 104 , 107, 459 F.2d 1128 , 1131 (1972). … [Wieck v. Sterenbuch, D.C.App., 350 A.2d 384, 387 (1976).] 2 . These principles were applied in Perry v.

Woods v. District of Columbia Nurses' Examining Board

436 A.2d 369 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1981

See also Pennsylvania State Board of Pharmacy v. … See Proctor v. Hackers’ Board, supra at 269 n.8. .

Jackson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

999 A.2d 89 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2010

V. … The Board's brief refers to the "more than 200 District rights and responsibilities of civil marriage.” . See Estenos v. PAHO/WHO-Fed.

Goodwin v. District of Columbia Board of Education

343 A.2d 63 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 1, 1975

final policy decision shall be made by the Board while in executive session. … See, e. g., Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 550-51 , 94 S.Ct. 2474 , 41 L.Ed. 2d 290 (1974).

In Re Zilberberg

612 A.2d 832 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1992

Zilberberg’s suspension in Virginia are summarized in the order of the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board (“the Virginia Board”). The suspension arose from his representation of Julia Brown in a personal injury case. … Brown’s claim against its insured. One-third of this check constituted Zilber-berg’s fee.