Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersdcd

10,000+ results

0.38s

  • Jones v. Greenspan

    402 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 2005

    Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8 , 13 *298 (D.C.Cir.1985) (stating that “because untimely exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, the defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving it”). … Stewart v. Evans, 275 F.3d 1126, 1134 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C.Cir.1999)).

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • National Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. United States Civil Service Commission

    346 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1972

    Robel, 389 U.S. 258 , 88 S.Ct. 419 , 19 L.Ed.2d 508 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 , 87 S.Ct. 675 , 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967). [11] See Roth v. … Board of Regents, supra note 10 , 385 U.S. at 597-604 , 87 S.Ct. 675 , 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 366-373 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964); NAACP v.

    Reversed on other grounds by United States Civil Service Commission v. National Ass'n of Letter Carriers, 413 U.S. 548 (1973)Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Stoddard v. Wynn

    168 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2016

    Baird v. Gotbaum, 792 F.3d 166, 169 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Because Mr. Stoddard is pro se, the Court must also consider allegations in his opposition memorandum. Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. … “Thus, if the prosecutors and parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity, dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds [is] proper.” Patterson, 999 F.2d at 1237.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom

    147 F. Supp. 306 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 1957

    The United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 178 , 211 F.2d 36 ; see also DePratter v. Farmer, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 74 , 232 F.2d 74 , Fay v. Douds, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 720 , and Leedom v. … B. v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Parrott v. Government of the District of Columbia

    District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2024

    United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 284 F.R.D. 22, 27 (D.D.C. 2012). B. … Plaintiffs were not receptive to this overture and now demand either all data from EvidenceOnQ or, in the alternative, all fields that were produced in an unrelated case, Brown v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Whitlock v. U.S. Department of Defense

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2025

    Id.; see Brown v. EPA, 384 F. Supp. 2d 271, 279 (D.D.C. 2005) (“[T]he D.C. … But the mere fact that a pool of potential jurors (or here, Board of Inquiry members) might be exposed to publicity about a case—“even per[v]asive, adverse publicity”— does not satisfy Exemption 7(B)’s high standard.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Millican v. United States

    District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2010

    Cir. 2004) (“The Corrections Board statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1552, provides for correction of military records . . . and for judicial review of the Board’s decision”); Chambers v. Green, 544 F. … Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172 (2001); Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“In matters of statutory construction, the text is our primary guide”).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • United States v. Ali

    793 F. Supp. 2d 386 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2011

    See United States v. Brown, 6 Fed.Appx. 5, 5-6 (D.C.Cir.2001); United States v. Vortis, 785 F.2d 327, 328-29 (D.C.Cir.1986), cert. denied, 479 U.S. 841 , 107 S.Ct. 148 , 93 L.Ed.2d 89 (1986). … See United States v.

    Cited 37 timesPublished
  • Harris v. United States

    148 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2015

    See Stokes v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 374 F.3d 1235, 1239 (D.C. … .”); Rooney v. Sec’y of Army, 405 F.3d 1029, 1032 (D.C.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Sinobia N. Brinkley v. District of Columbia

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2026

    Plaintiff Brown’s EEOC Charges Plaintiff Brown filed her first EEOC Charge on September 3, 2021. Pls.’ Opp’n, Ex. 3 (Plaintiff Brown’s EEOC Charge) at 12, ECF No. 52-2. … Brown v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hunt v. Baker

    District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 2025

    Johnson- 4 Brown v. 2200 M St. LLC, 257 F. Supp. 2d 175, 177 (D.D.C. 2003). … See Breakman v. AOL LLC, 545 F.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Sickle v. Torres Advanced Enterprise Solutions, LLC

    District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 24, 2013

    ) DAVID SICKLE, et. al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. … DATE: December 24, 2013 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Federal Trade Commission v. Staples, Inc.

    970 F. Supp. 1066 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 1997

    Brown Shoe v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325 , 82 S.Ct. 1502, 1523-24 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962); see also United States v. … the Boards approved the transaction.

    Cited 58 timesPublished
  • Walsh v. Hagee

    900 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 2012

    Walsh, then, had to hand-deliver the application to the Board for Correction of Naval Records (“BCNR”). Id. ¶ 41–43. … Peavey v. Holder, 657 F. Supp. 2d 180, 185 (D.D.C. 2009 (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6)). A Rule 12(b)(6) motion tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint. Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.

    Cited 18 timesPublished
  • Wayne v. Three Male Suspects

    District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2025

    See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 1 Plaintiff alleges “Trespassing by three male suspects on Tuesday July 22, 2025,” Compl.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Bobreski v. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

    284 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2003

    The ALJ then concluded, based on a 2000 Administrative Review Board (“ARB”) decision and Department regulations, that she had inherent authority to issue subpoenas. Id. at 2-3 (citing 29 C.F.R. § 18.24 (d); Childers v. … Food & Drug Admin. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132-33 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000); S. Calif. Edison, 195 F.3d at 23 . In addition, the court may look to legislative history.

    Cited 19 timesPublished
  • Danielsen v. Burnside-Ott Aviation Training Center, Inc.

    746 F. Supp. 170 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 1990

    Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 832-33 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1968 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). … Indus., Inc., 680 F.Supp. 1212 (N.D.Ill.1988) [hereinafter “Brown”] (RICO claims preempted by Labor Management Relations Act and National Labor Relations Act); Butchers’ Union, Local No. 498 v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Fischer v. District of Columbia

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2025

    Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Monell v. Dep’t of Soc. Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (1978)). … Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 409 (1997).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Mintz v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

    District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2010

    See Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d at 1276; Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). B. Liability of the FDIC Mr. … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d at 242 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see In re IndyMac Mortgage-Backed Securities, Civil Action No. 09-4583, 2010 WL 2473243, at *8 (S.D.N.Y.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Vasquez v. United States Capitol Police

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2025

    In Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Board, the D.C. … George, 407 F.3d at 412–13; see also Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016, 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2015).

    Cited 0 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.