Case law

United States v. Medina

628 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2009

(Decl. of Devon Brown at ¶ 9.) After giving the DOC the “wide ranging deference” that is required by the Supreme Court, Bell v. … See, e.g., Bell v.

Fogg v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2025

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MATTHEW FOGG, Plaintiff, v. … ORDERED that [12] Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; it is further ORDERED that [8] Defendant’s motion for a stay is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that [16] Clarence Brown

Weinberg v. Barry

634 F. Supp. 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1986

Finally, the decisions of the Review Board are subject to judicial review by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. See A & G Limited Partnership v. … United States v. Singleton, 759 F.2d 176 (D.C.Cir.1985).

Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Chicago, Milwaukee, St. Paul & Pacific Railroad

248 F. Supp. 1008 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 12, 1966

Fire. & Eng. v. Chicago, B. & Q. R. … Board 282.”

Sullivan-Obst v. Powell

300 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2004

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Development v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … 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)).

Davis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

815 F. Supp. 2d 283 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2011

Co. v. … Conservation v.

Christopher v. Burnet

55 F.2d 527 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 1931

The board affirmed this finding. … Moreover, all the facts were before tho board, and it found therefrom, as it was authorized to do, the correct amount of tho deficiency. Hughes v. Commissioner (C. C. A.) 38 F.(2d) 755 ; Seufert Bros. Co. v. Lucas (C.

United States v. Simms

171 F. Supp. 834 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 1959

Draper v. United States, 358 U.S. 307 , 79 S.Ct. 329 , 3 L.Ed.2d 327 ; D.C.Code §§ 4-140, 4-141; United States v. Kancso, 2 Cir., 1958, 252 F.2d 220 ; Mills v. … Draper v. United States, supra; United States v. Rabinowitz, 1950, 339 U.S. 56 , 70 S.Ct. 430 , 94 L.Ed. 653 . 3. The case of United States v.

Charette v. Walker

996 F. Supp. 43 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1998

See, e.g., Frizelle v. … Dalton, 927 F.Supp. 1, 9-10 (D.D.C. 1996) (remanding to the Board because Board did not have full opportunity to-eonsider the entire record); Nethery v.

Davis v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

124 F. App'x 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2005

Co. v. … Crum v. General Adjustment Bureau, 738 F.2d 474, 477 (D.C.Cir.1984). Substantial evidence is what a reasonable person would accept as adequate to support a conclusion. See Richardson v.

Murphy v. Department of the Air Force

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2025

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323 (1986). … McCready v. Nicholson, 465 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2006).

Bancoult v. McNamara

370 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2004

In November 2002, the plaintiffs moved for leave to amend their complaint to reinstate DCDM and add Brown & Root as defendants. … Powell v.

Baltimore v. Clinton

900 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 2012

See Camp v. … The Board has extremely broad discretion in evidentiary rulings. See Bettucci v. United States, 14 F.

Kaul v. Federation of State Medical Boards

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2020

State Board of Dental Examiners v. … Brown, 317 U.S. 341 (1943), established that state and municipal authorities are immune from federal antitrust lawsuits for actions taken pursuant to a clearly expressed state policy that, when legislated, had foreseeable

United States ex rel. Barr v. Resor

309 F. Supp. 917 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 1969

The Ninth Circuit in Craycroft v. … Ogden v. Zuckert, 111 U.S.App.D.C. 398 , 298 F.2d 312 (1961) ; Sohm v. Fowler, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 382 , 365 F.2d 915 (1966). .

ALLIED PILOTS ASS'N v. American Airlines, Inc.

734 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2010

But because the Board reached its decision by construing the CBA, it is not the task of this Court to correct the Board’s interpretation, even if that interpretation was “badly mistaken.” Nat’l Postal Mail Handlers v. … Postal Serv. v. Am.

Brink v. Xe Holding, LLC

910 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2012

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Brown v.

Kalil v. Johanns

407 F. Supp. 2d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2005

See Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994); Konarski v. Brown, 293 F.Supp.2d 70, 72 (D.D.C.2003). … Weinberg, 434 A.2d 404 (D.C.1981) (holding that a laundromat employee was acting within the scope of employment when he shot a customer following a dispute over missing clothes); Brown v.

Kautter v. Reid

183 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 12, 1960

White v. Reid, 125 F.Supp. at page 649 . … Benton v.

Klayman v. District of Columbia Court of Appeals

District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2025

Board Defs.’ … See Lujan v.