Case law

Parks v. Federal Home Loan Bank of San Francisco

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2020

See Brown v. Brown, 343 A.2d 59, 61 (D.C. 1975). … Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Tsintolas Realty Co. v. Mendez, 984 A.2d 181, 187 (D.C. 2009)).

In Re Inslaw, Inc.

97 B.R. 685 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 1989

Conway and Brown will conduct the litigation in the Board of Contract Appeals and Court of Claims arising directly out of the contract. … Based upon the leading case of Woods v. City Nat.

Escobedo v. Green

602 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2009

Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319, 324 (D.C.Cir.2006). Military boards are entitled to even greater deference than civilian administrative agencies. Labin v. Harvey, Civ. No. 05-315, 2006 WL 949884 , *5 (D.D.C. … Casey v. United States, 8 Cl.Ct. 234, 239 (Fed.Cl.1985); see also Simmons v. Brown, 497 F.Supp. 173, 178 (D.Md.1980) (regulations of the branches of service must be in accord with DoD regulations); cf. Holz v.

United States Ex Rel. McBride v. Halliburton Co.

44 F. Supp. 3d 69 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 2014

1:05-CV-828 (FJS/JMF) HALLIBURTON COMPANY, KELLOGG BROWN AND ROOT, also known as KBR; SERVICE EMPLOYEES INTERNATIONAL; KELLOGG BROWN & ROOT SERVICES, INCORPORATED … He recalled no discussion at the Task Order 59 award fee board proceedings about MWR patronage or staffing and has no reason to believe that these issues affected the award fee evaluation board's determination.

Webster v. United States Department of Energy

267 F. Supp. 3d 246 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2017

Brown’s or Ms. … The MSPB regulations state that “[w]here the appellant has been subject to an action appealable to the Board, he or she may either file a timely complaint of discrimination with the agency or file an appeal with the Board

Cummings v. Department of the Navy

116 F. Supp. 2d 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 6, 2000

Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 299 , 103 S.Ct. 2362 , 76 L.Ed.2d 586 (1983) (quoting United States v. Brown, 348 U.S. 110, 112 , 75 S.Ct. 141 , 99 L.Ed. 139 (1954)). … See, e.g., Bois v. Marsh, 801 F.2d 462 (D.C.Cir.1986) ( 42 U.S.C. § 1985 action); Verma v. United States, 19 F.3d 646 (D.C.Cir.1994) (due process and just compensation claims based on the Fifth Amendment); Brown v.

Viehe v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2020

“The Board of Trustees of UDC is considered ‘an arm of the D.C. government,’ ” and therefore, the District of Columbia “ ‘is the real party in interest in this litigation.’ ” Howerton v. Ogletree, 466 F. … Yelverton v. Fed. Ins. Co., 831 F.3d 585, 509 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see also Brink v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 787 F.3d 1120, 1127 (D.C.

Hammond v. D.C. Record Center

593 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2009

Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . B. … Brown v. Smith, 828 F.2d 1493, 1494-95 (10th Cir.1987); see Inmates of Occoquan v.

Hopkins v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2010

Co. v. Odoi Assocs., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 655, *108 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2006) (citing Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1247 (D.C. 1986)). … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Bennett Enters. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 45 F.3d 493, 499 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

Knop v. MacKall

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2009

Johnson-Brown v. M. St. LLC, 257 F. Supp. 2d 175,177 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999)). … Johnson-Brown, 257 F. Supp. 2d at 181 (citing Garcir, 254 F.3d at 588); see Garbie v.

McGary v. Ravindra

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2020

James v. United States, 48 F. Supp. 3d 58, 63 (D.D.C. 2014). The Court considers Plaintiff’s pro se complaint in light of all filings in the record. Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. … Williams v. Bank of New York Mellon, 169 F. Supp. 3d 119, 125 (D.D.C. 2016); see also Brown v. Koenick, No. 96-5296, 1997 WL 150101, at *1 (D.C. Cir.

Division 700, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. National Railway Labor Arbitration Board No. 282

223 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 1963

The Board promptly instituted hearings. … This Board was created to meet a national emergency of great magnitude.

In Re NAVY CHAPLAINCY

850 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2012

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

Klayman v. Porter

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2026

Brown v. FBI, 873 F. Supp. 2d 388, 408 (D.D.C. 2012) (citing Wasserman v. Rodacker, No. 06- cv-1005 (RWR), 2007 WL 2071649, at *7 (D.D.C. July 18, 2007)). … See Bolling v. Sharpe, 347 U.S. 497, 498–99 (1954), supplemented sub nom. Brown v.

Williams v. Munoz

106 F. Supp. 2d 40 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2000

See McAdams v. Reno, 64 F.3d 1137, 1142 (8th Cir.1995) (quoting Tolbert v. United States, *44 916 F.2d 245, 248 (5th Cir.1990)); see also Brown v. General Servs. … See Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 456 (D.C.Cir.1999). At this stage, however, the claim is not subject to dismissal. “[A] plaintiff need not set forth the elements of a prima facie case at the initial pleading stage.”

Beberman v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 3, 2025

Beberman v. … Amobi v. Brown, 317 F. Supp. 3d 29, 35–36 (D.D.C. 2018). Doing so for these “facts on the public record” is permissible when deciding “a motion to dismiss.” Covad Cmmc’ns Co. v. Bell Atl.

Continental Resources, Inc. v. Jewell

134 F. Supp. 3d 231 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2015

In *235 Adams Fruit Co., Inc. v. … (citing Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984). Given the Court’s analysis above, the Court does not agree that equitable tolling is appropriate in this case.

Neely v. Blumenthal

458 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 1978

Brown v. General Services Administration, 507 F.2d 1300, 1307 (2d Cir. 1974). … Brown, supra, 507 F.2d at 1303. 13 . See also United States v.

Baxley v. Wormuth

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2024

Board’s interpretation of Army Regulation 600-85 under Kisor v. … Rudo v. McHugh, 931 F. Supp. 2d 132,143 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Owings v. Brown, 86 F.3d 1178 (Table) (Fed Cir. 1996)).

Cleveland County Ass'n for Government by the People v. Cleveland County Board of Commissioners

965 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 1997

Board of Commissioners v. … As Moore v.