Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersdcd

10,000+ results

1.99s

  • Tennekoon v. Fanning

    156 F. Supp. 3d 208 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2016

    Albino v. United States, 78 F. Supp. 3d 148, 167 (D.D.C. 2015), citing Frizelle, 111 F.3d at 177; see also Rudo v. Geren, 818 F. … See Musengo v. White, 286 F.3d 535, 539 (D.C.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Leongini v. National Association of Water Companies

    District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2021

    See Brady v. … Brown, ECF No. 4-4, at 1.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Cytologic, Inc. v. Biopheresis Gmbh

    682 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2010

    Laningham v. U.S. … See, e.g., Conservolite, Inc. v.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Ahuruonye v. Department of the Interior

    District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2022

    Kittner v. Gates, 708 F.Supp.2d 47, 52 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Brown v. Gen. Servs. … Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127, 1130 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C. Cir. 1999)); see also Carroll v. England, 321 F. Supp. 2d 58, 68 (D.D.C. 2004).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Jackson v. Correctional Corporation of America

    564 F. Supp. 2d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2008

    See Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, Civil Action No. 04-2195, 2005 WL 3276267 , at *3 (D.D.C. … Brown v. Argenbright Security, Inc., 782 A.2d 752, 757 (D.C.2001) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also District of Columbia v.

    Cited 55 timesPublished
  • Jackson v. Bessent

    District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2026

    P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668–71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Bullock v. Spencer

    112 F. Supp. 147 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 1953

    The defendant Robert V. … Brady v.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • ['Judicial Watch, Inc. v. Department of the Navy']

    25 F. Supp. 3d 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 2014

    In making this decision, the SSA had assistance from a Source Selection Board (“SSB”), which is a team of agency employees that is responsible for “evaluat[ing] proposals[] submitted in response to a solicitation for renewable … DATE: March 17, 2014 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

    Cited 49 timesPublished
  • Lynch v. Tobriner

    237 F. Supp. 313 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 12, 1965

    The pertinent testimony adduced before the Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief Board was the medical report of Dr. Victor H. Esch, Member of the Board of Police and Fire Surgeons; Dr. G. … See Crawford v. McLaughlin, 109 U.S.App. D.C. 264, 286 F.2d 821 . Counsel for the plaintiff will prepare the appropriate order not inconsistent with this opinion.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • United States v. Philip Morris Inc.

    156 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2001

    See Dowling v. … Reynolds Tobacco Co., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co., Lorillard Tobacco Company, The Liggett Group, Inc., American Tobacco Co., Philip Morris Cos., B.A.T. Industries p.l.c.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Rhodes v. United States Department of the Army

    District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2025

    Ethyl Corp. v. Browner, 989 F.2d 522, 524 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Carpenters Indus. Council v. Salazar, 734 F. Supp. 2d 126, 132 (D.D.C. 2010); Sierra Club v. Van Antwerp, 560 F. Supp. 2d 21, 23 (D.D.C. 2008). … See Borud v. Emmert, No. 24-1211-TNM, 2025 WL 894417, at *3 (D.D.C.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Catholic Health Initiatives v. Sebelius

    658 F. Supp. 2d 113 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

    DOT, 843 F.2d at 1452; see also Humane Society v. Kempthorne, 579 F.Supp.2d at 13 . III. DISCUSSION Plaintiffs challenge the Board’s decision disallowing reimbursement. See Compl. ¶¶ 115-17. … While the PRM provision itself would be due less deference than a Board decision, see Public Citizen, Inc. v.

    Reversed on other grounds by Catholic Health Initiatives v. Sebelius, 617 F.3d 490 (2010)Cited 14 timesPublished
  • APCC Services, Inc. v. AT & T CORP.

    254 F. Supp. 2d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2003

    United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 551 , 116 S.Ct. 1529 , 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996). … Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544 , 116 S.Ct. 1529 , 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996) [hereinafter “Brown Group ”]. (See Pis.’ Opp. at 19-20.) Plaintiffs’ reliance is, however, misplaced.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Aviel v. Gor

    District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2025

    LLC v. Consumer Fin. Prot. … Berry v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Kingman Park Civic Association v. Gray

    27 F. Supp. 3d 142 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 2014

    See Ekwem v. … For Washington’s Riverfront Parks v. Thompson, 451 A.2d 1177, 1183 (D.C. 1982) (citing Shiflett v. Dist. of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review, 431 A.2d 9, 10-11 (D.C. 1981)).

    Cited 73 timesPublished
  • Moses v. Corning

    104 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 1952

    Carr v. Corning, Superintendent of Public Schools (Browne Junior High School Parent-Teacher Ass’n v. Magdeburger,) 86 U.S.App.D.C. 173 , 182 F.2d 14 . … As our Court of Appeals, speaking through Judge Prettyman, said in the Carr and related case, supra [ 86 U.S.App.D.C. 173 , 182 F.2d 20 ], “The Board of Education in the District undoubtedly has faced for many years acute

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Hyatt v. Lee

    232 F. Supp. 3d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2017

    Cherry v. Brown-Frazier-Whitney, 548 F.2d 965, 969 (D.C. Cir. 1976) (“[Wlhether there has been a ‘failure to prosecute’ is to be determined upon a consideration of all pertinent circumstances .... ”). … At the time that it affirmed the written description rejections, the Patent Trial and Appeal Board was known as the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. See Leahy-Smith America Invents Act, Pub. L.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Roberts v. Geren

    530 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 27, 2007

    A reviewing court will ‘uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the [board’s] path may reasonably be discerned.’ ” Dickson v. Sec’y of Defense, 68 F.3d 1396, 1404 (D.C.Cir.1995) (quoting Bowman Transp., Inc. v. … Co., Inc. v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Lebron v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

    585 F. Supp. 1461 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 1984

    Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 50-53 , 96 S.Ct. 612, 650-51 , 46 L.Ed.2d 659 (1976). However, “[untruthful speech, commercial or otherwise, has never been protected for its own sake.” Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. … See, e.g., Tomei v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Merchia v. Harvard Pilgrim Healthcare, Inc.

    District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2024

    Supp. 3d 14, 19 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545, 548 (D.C. Cir. 1999)); see Brown v. Hill, 573 F. App’x 3 (D.C. … Brit UW, Limited v. Manhattan Beachwear, LLC, 235 F. Supp. 3d 48, 54, 60 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 564 U.S. 915, 919 (2011)) (other citations omitted)).

    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.