Case law

General Services Administration v. Public Service Commission

469 A.2d 1238 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1983

Public Service Commission, 402 A.2d 14, 17 (en banc), cert. denied, 444 U.S. 926, 100 S.Ct. 265 , 62 *1241 L.Ed.2d 182 (1979)); Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade v. … Potomac Electric Power Co. v. Public Service Commission, supra, 402 A.2d at 18 , quoting Williams v.

Holt v. Holt

1 D.C. 81 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 1934

Citing Andrews v. Andrews, 188 U. S. 14 . … In Andrews v.

Johnson v. United States

686 A.2d 200 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1996

See also Carter v. … In Abrams v.

CHRISTOPHER T. HOLMES v. UNITED STATES.

143 A.3d 60 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 2016

See, e.g., Brown v. … (quoting Hill v. United States, 622 A.2d 680, 684 (D.C.1993); Leeper v. United States, 579 A.2d 695, 699 (D.C.1990)).

Suesbury v. Caceres

840 A.2d 1285 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2004

In 1988, Caceres hired Muller, a board certified internist, to work at his medical office. Caceres first examined appellant on January 15, 1988. … Taylor v. United States, 95 U.S.App.

Kendrick v. Fox Television

659 A.2d 814 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1995

In District of Columbia v. … See Adkins v.

Lenkin Co. Management, Inc. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission

642 A.2d 1282 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 1994

Glenbrook Rd. v. Board of Zoning Adjustment, 605 A.2d 22, 33 (D.C.1992); see Lundahl v. … See DeLevay v.

Greenpeace, Inc. v. The Dow Chemical Company

97 A.3d 1053 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2014

See Rose v. … Young v. District of Columbia, 752 A.2d 138, 144 (D.C. 2000); see also Gaetan v.

In re S.S.

821 A.2d 353 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2003

See, e.g., District of Columbia v. WICAL Ltd. … See Galindo v.

Bonowitz v. United States

741 A.2d 18 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1999

For example, in Widmar v. … Rosenberger v.

Kidwell v. District of Columbia

670 A.2d 349 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1996

. § 1983 (1988) and Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), asserted that the nonpro-motion violated Kidwell’s First Amendment rights. … Reeb v.

Callaham v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2022

Brown v. United States, 59 A.3d 974, 975 (D.C. 2013).  21 the message received by the jury is otherwise. … Epperson v.

Tucker v. United States

871 A.2d 453 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2005

Rowland v. United States, 840 A.2d 664, 687 (D.C.2004) (citing Strickler v. Greene, 627 U.S. 263 , 280, 119 S.Ct. 1936 , 144 L.Ed.2d 286 (1999)) (quoting United States v. … Defense counsel failed to proffer “ ‘some facts which support a genuine belief that [Troy Carter] [was] biased in the manner asserted.’ ” Brown v. United States, 740 A.2d 583, 536 (D.C.1999) (quoting Jones v.

Haynesworth v. United States

473 A.2d 366 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 1984

Appellant, on the other hand, testified that while he was using the store telephone to contact the Wage and Hour Board about his dismissal, Van Grack reached for a pistol that was located in a cubbyhole behind the service … Hamling v. United States, 418 U.S. 87, 101 , 94 S.Ct. 2887, 2899 , 41 L.Ed.2d 590 (1974); Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390, 393-94 , 52 S.Ct. 189, 190-91 , 76 L.Ed. 356 (1932); Steadman v.

Funk v. Haines & Matteson

20 App. D.C. 285 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1902

Coffin v. Ogden, 18 Wall. 120 . In the production of proof, in matters of interference, the parties must be held strictly to the dates’ set forth in their preliminary statements. … From the award of priority to Funk by the examiner of interferences appeals were taken to the board of examiners- *292 in.-cb.ief, by both Haines and Matteson.

Office of Risk Management v. Jordan

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2020

Code § 32-150 (3)(V).”) (internal quotation marks omitted); Dent v. … .”; “We find the [federal Employees’ Compensation Appeals Board’s] interpretation of [FECA] persuasive.”) (internal quotation marks omitted).

District of Columbia v. Davis

386 A.2d 1195 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 19, 1978

Ruml v. Giant Food, Inc., D.C.App., 290 A.2d 571 (1972); Paylor v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C.App., 225 A.2d 312 (1967); Brown v. Alabama Foods, Inc., D.C.App., 190 A.2d 257 (1963). … Presley v.

King Carpentry v. 1345 K Street, SE, LLC

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 2021

Heck v. … Compare Lefler v. Forsberg, 1 App. D.C. 36, 41 (D.C. Cir. 1893) (“The proceeding to fix and enforce the lien is in its nature a proceeding in rem.”), with Brown v. Waring, 1 App. D.C. 378, 380 (D.C.

Mosley v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

573 A.2d 776 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 1990

He cites, inter alia, a New Jersey case, Doe v. St. … Id.; accord, McMullen v. District of Columbia Police and Firefighters Retirement & Relief Board, 465 A.2d 364, 366 (D.C.1983).

Harper v. United States

582 A.2d 485 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1990

P.J. described him as “a black male, late twenties, five nine in height, thin build, brown complexion, close cut hair, and ... a beard.” Ms. … Landrum v. United States, 559 A.2d 1323, 1326 (D.C.1989); Thompson v. United States, 546 A.2d 414, 420 (D.C.1988); Graves v.