Case law

Roberts v. United States

883 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2012

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957)); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam). … . § 1552(a)); see Mueller v. Winter, 485 F.3d 1191, 1198 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (applying standard to decision by Board for Correction of Naval Records).

Jarvis v. Parker

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2014

prejudice Plaintiffs’ Complaint against Defendant Brown. … Ackerman v. United States, 340 U.S. 193, 199 (1950). See also Gonzalez v.

Esters v. Nielsen

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2021

Esters alleges that she requested a meeting with Brown to discuss her lower- than-expected score but Brown refused to meet with her. Id. ¶ 36. … Byrd v. Vilsack, 931 F. Supp. 2d 27, 41 (D.D.C. 2013); see Beckham v. Nat’l R.R. Passenger Corp., 736 F.

Tom We Shung v. McGrath

103 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 1952

Saclarides et al. v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 180 F.2d 687, 689 . . McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U.S. 162, 169 , 71 S.Ct. 224 , 95 L.Ed. 173 . . Tulsidas v. … Ed. 969 ; Knauff v. Staughnessy, 338 U. S. 537 ,. 543, 70 S.Ct. 309 , 94 L.Ed. 317 . . O’Connell ex rel. Kwong Han Foo v. Ward, 1 Cir., 126 E.2d 615, 620.

Beatty v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2026

See Trump v. … Salazar v.

Wisconsin Bankers Association v. Robertson

190 F. Supp. 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 1960

Bank of Republic v. Millard, 10 Wall. 152 , 77 U.S. 152 , 19 L.Ed. 897 ; Scammon v. Kimball, 92 U.S. 362 , 23 L.Ed. 483 ; Hardee v. George H. Price Co., 67 App.D.C. 25 , 89 F.2d 497 . 2 . Alabama Power Co. v. … Ickes, 302 U.S. 464 , 58 S.Ct. 300 , 82 L.Ed. 374 ; Tennessee Electric Power Co. v. T. V. A., 306 U.S. 118 , 59 S.Ct. 366 , 83 L.Ed. 543 ; Perkins v.

Aubin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2015

Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 404 (1997). In all events, the municipality’s liability can be predicated "only [upon] acts for which the municipality itselfis actually responsible.” City ofSt. Louis v. … Id; see also Allen v.

Hornsby v. Federal Housing Finance Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2025

Miles v. … The Board did not err by denying relief on that basis. V.

Xilojitzep v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 2025

Campaign Legal Ctr. v. Fed. Election Comm’n, No. 5 22-cv-3319 (CRC), 2024 WL 4263853, at *5 (D.D.C. Sept. 23, 2024) (citing Browning v. … Brown v. Ill. Cent. R.R. Co., 254 F.3d 654, 658 (7th Cir. 2001).

Calloway v. Harvey

590 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 2008

Judicial review of the final decision of the Army Board is limited to a determination of whether the board’s decision “is arbitrary and capricious, contrary to law, or unsupported by substantial evidence.” Frizelle v. … Corp. v.

Sturm v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2025

United States. v. L.A. … ”); Roberts v.

United States v. Clipper

758 F. Supp. 756 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 1991

In United States v. … The informant supplied a brief description of Draper and predicted he would be wearing a light-colored raincoat, brown slacks and brown shoes and would be walking “real fast.”

Chandler v. Bernanke

531 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 2008

Ben Bernanke, Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (“The Board”). Ms. … Sullivan-Obst v. Powell, 300 F.Supp.2d 85, 99 (D.D.C.2004)(citing Gardner v. United States, 1999 WL 164412 , at *7 (D.D.C. Jan. 29, 1999)); accord Russell v.

Tansey v. Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc.

97 F. Supp. 458 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 1950

Nabors v. Texas Co., D.C.W.D.La., 32 F.Supp. 91 . … Co. v. Grant, 234 Ky. 276, 285 , 27 S.W.2d 980 ; Gourley v. Chicago, etc. R. Co., 295 IIl.App. 160, 14 N.E.2d 842 .

Pyrocap International Corp. v. Ford Motor Co.

259 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2003

See Claasen v. … See Claasen v, Brown, 15 A.D.D. 443, 1996 WL 79490 , * 6.

Kittner v. Gates

708 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2010

Defendants rely on Brown v. Gen. Serv. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976), to argue that Title VII preempts Kittner’s constitutional claim. … However, it does not follow logically that the absence of the issue in Brown compels the conclusion that the Brown holding is not applicable to the facts in Neely .

Jovanovic v. US-Algeria Business Council

561 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2008

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 244 (D.C.Cir.2002). … See Hill v. U.S.

Nuskey v. Lambright

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2009

Jones-Brown. See Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512, 521 (D.C. … See Timeliness Opinion at 3 (quoting Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1 (1984) (per curiam) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e)); Powell v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 238 F.

Bartel v. Federal Aviation Administration

617 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 1985

Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 835 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1969 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Kizas v. Webster, 707 F.2d 524, 542 (D.C.Cir.1983); Davis v. … See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 , 96 S.Ct. 1817 , 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976); Paton v. LaPrade, 524 F.2d 862 (3d Cir.1975). 17 . Houchins v.

Nader v. McAuliffe

593 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2009

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); 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, 40 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . The court’s resolution of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion represents a ruling on the merits with res judicata effect. Haase v.