Case law

Doe v. Daversa Partners

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2021

Johnson-Brown v. 2200 M Street LLC, 257 F. Supp. 2d 175, 177 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). … Brown’s Opp’n at 3; Daversa’s Opp’n at 7. Here, only one of the requirements was met: while Brown fulfills the second requirement, plaintiff concedes that “Brown had not been served at the time of the removal.”

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.

Polaroid Corporation v. Horner

197 F. Supp. 950 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 1961

The Board further concluded that the principles of the employer-employee relation as found in the case of Agawam Woolen Company v. … The Board then discussed Agawam Woolen Company v. Jordan, supra, and the line of cases following.

Sirmans v. Caldera

138 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2001

See, e.g., Bush v. … .”); Georgia v.

Reeder v. James

121 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2015

Military records are reviewed by the civilian boards for correction of military records, and federal courts review final decisions made by the civilian records correction boards under the APA. Remmie v. … Rudo v. Geren, 818 F.Supp.2d 17, 25-26 (D.D.C.2011) (quoting Frizelle v. Slater, 111 F.3d 172, 176 . (D.C.Cir.1997)).

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.

Evans v. First Mount Vernon, Ila

District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2011

She contacted a mortgage broker, defendant Sherman Brown ("Brown"), to help her secure financing for the purchase. Id. ¶ 13. … 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.

Jordan Hospital v. Leavitt

571 F. Supp. 2d 108 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2008

Transitional Care v. … Joseph’s Health Servs. v. BlueCross BlueShield Ass’n, 2005 WL 3741453 , at *8 (July 13, 2005) (Administrator review of Board decision).

International Brotherhood of Teamsters v. Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks

245 F. Supp. 835 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 1965

not subject to judicial review, Switchmen’s Union of North America v. … Hod Carriers, etc. 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.

Bloch v. Albright

43 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 1999

In reviewing a decision of the Board this court must afford great deference to the Board’s decision. See United States v. Paddack, 825 F.2d 504, 514 (D.C.Cir.1987). … Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v.

Novacare, Inc. v. Thompson

357 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2005

The analysis, therefore, is limited , to determining whether the Board’s decision was “rational and based on a consideration of the relevant factors.” FCC v. … Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C.Cir.1994).

Agapito v. District of Columbia

525 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2007

There has been no reply from the attorneys at the Brown firm. II. … See Laffey v.

Outlaw v. Chater

921 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 1996

Board of Educ. of Dyer County, 471 U.S. 234, 243 , 105 S.Ct. 1923, 1928 , 85 L.Ed.2d 233 (1985). … See, e.g., Brown v. Sullivan, 917 F.2d 189 (5th Cir.1990); Conner v. Gardner, 381 F.2d 497 (4th Cir.1967).

Levant v. Roche

384 F. Supp. 2d 262 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2005

Kreis v. … See Dickson v.

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). .

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.”

Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd.

583 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2008

See Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, 495 F.3d 1340, 1346 (Fed.Cir.2007); see also Crossbow Tech., Inc. v. … Charlie Brown and Lucy were at least nominally on the same side, and Lucy didn’t want to keep the ball — she just didn’t want Charlie Brown to have the satisfaction of kicking it.