Case law

In re V.K.

766 A.2d 958 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 2000

B.S. v. … Brown v. United States, 105 U.S.App.

In re Heroult

29 App. D.C. 42 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1907

Eames v. Andrews, 122 U. S. 40, 59 , 30 L. ed. 1064, 1070, 7 Sup. Ct. Rep. 1073; Topliff v. Topliff, 145 U. S. 156, 171 , 36 *52 L. ed. 658, 664, 12 Sup. Ct. Rep. 825; Hobbs v. Beach, 180 U. … In Eames v.

Mahoney v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

953 A.2d 739 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 2008

THOMPSON, Associate Judge: Petitioner Otis Mahoney challenges an order of the Compensation Review Board (the “CRB”) upholding the denial of his claim for reinstatement of wage-loss and medical benefits. 1 Contending that … Giles v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 758 A.2d 522, 524 (D.C.2000) (citation omitted). III. Citing Washington Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Empl.

Rogers v. United States

534 A.2d 928 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1988

Smith v. United States, 392 A.2d 990, 993 (D.C.1978); Brown v. United States, 119 U.S.App.D.C. 203, 207-08 , 338 F.2d 543, 547-48 (1964); Thomas, supra, 74 U.S.App.D.C. at 169-71, 121 F.2d at 907-09 . … And recently in McAdoo v.

Gaston v. United States

34 A.2d 353 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1943

Creary v. Weeks, 259 U.S. 336 , 42 S.Ct. 509 , 66 L.Ed. 973 . Lewis v. United States, 279 U.S. 63, 73 , 49 S.Ct. 257 , 73 L.Ed. 615 ; Proctor & Gamble Co. v. Coe, 68 App.D.C. 246 , 96 F.2d 518 . Scott v. … Co. v. Mitchell, D.C., 208 P. 469 . U.S.Code, Title 32, Sec. 171, 32 U.S. C.A. § 171. Carpenter v. District of Columbia, Mun.App.D.C., 32 A.2d 251 .

Wilson v. United States

568 A.2d 817 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1990

Bartley v. United States, 530 A.2d 692, 697 (D.C.1987) (citations omitted). As explained in United States v. … WMATA is a creature of an interstate compact in which the elected representatives of the three jurisdictions comprise its board of directors. See WMATA Compact, §§ 5 & 8.

Matthews v. United States

892 A.2d 1100 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 2006

People v. Dawson, 50 N.Y.2d 311 , 428 N.Y.S.2d 914 , 406 N.E.2d 771 , 777 n. 4 (1980); cf. Davis v. … See Newman v.

United States ex rel. International Contracting Co. v. Lamont

2 App. D.C. 532 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1894

For, as said by the Supreme Court, in the case of Board of Liquidation v. McComb, 92 U. … Clark v. United States, 95 U. S., 539 ; South Boston Iron Co. v. United States, 118 U. S., 37, 42 .

Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co. v. District of Columbia

441 A.2d 969 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1982

Jackson v. … Bateson & Co. v. Board of Trustees, 434 U.S. 586 , 98 S.Ct. 873 , 55 L.Ed.2d 50 (1978). .

Government Employees Insurance v. Group Hospitalization Medical Services, Inc.

602 A.2d 1083 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1992

See Taylor v. … Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983) (declining to adopt comparative negligence standard). 2 .

Administrator of Veterans Affairs v. Valentine

490 A.2d 1165 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1985

Morton v. Mancari, 417 U.S. 535, 551 , 94 S.Ct 2474, 2483 , 41 L.Ed.2d 290 (1974). … District of Columbia Board of Education, 343 A.2d 63, 65-66 (D.C.1975).

Lucas v. United States

20 A.3d 737 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 26, 2011

Brown v. … McCrimmon v.

Chase v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

804 A.2d 1119 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2002

Butler v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Empl. Servs., 598 A.2d 733, 735 (D.C.1991). … As we have done previously, see Washington Times v. District of Columbia Dep't of Empl.

Brenda Johnson v. D.C. Dept. of Emp't Servs. / Federal Express Corp. & Sedgwick Claims Mgmt. Servs.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2017

See, e.g., Muhammad v. … Video Lottery Terminal Initiative v.

JEFFREY BOWSER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, and CLARK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, INTERVENORS.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2016

United States Gypsum Co. v. Pendleton, 340 P.2d 467, 468 (Okla. 1959). … Simmons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 96 A.3d 1143, 1149 (Pa. Commw.

Matthews v. Automated Business Systems & Services, Inc.

558 A.2d 1175 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 1989

Williamson v. Tucker, supra, 645 F.2d at 414 ; see Timberlane Lumber Co. v. … Indeed, we recognized in Honig that “enforcement by a private person” may still be available even if the OHR declines, in its discretion, to exercise jurisdiction. 388 A.2d at 888 ; accord, Brown v.

Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown, Inc. v. Washington

291 A.2d 699 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 19, 1972

Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U.S. 325 , 47 S.Ct. 594 , 71 L.Ed. 1074 (1927); Shenk v. Zoning Commission, 142 U.S.App.D.C. 267 , 440 F.2d 295 (1971); Diedrich v. … See Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Hardin, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 391 , 428 F.2d 1093 (1970). See also Kessler v.

Harris v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

746 A.2d 297 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2000

Next, in Harris v. … Hill v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 717 A.2d 909, 912 (D.C.1998) (citing Glenbrook Road Ass’n v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 605 A.2d 22, 33 (D.C.1992)). See also Hughes v.

Parker v. Appert

8 App. D.C. 270 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1896

The question is purely one of fact, and under the decision in the case of Hisey v. Peters, 6 App. D. C. 78 : 71 O. … G. 892 , we might very well decline to disturb the conclusions reached by the board of examiners and the Commissioner of Patents.

Johnson v. United States

356 A.2d 639 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1976

Justice Brown said: "It is no ground for reversal that the court omitted to give instructions, where they were not requested by the defendant. It is sufficient that the court gave no erroneous instructions.” … In Coleman v.