Case law

Hunt v. United States Department of Agriculture

740 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 23, 2010

.”); Harrison v. … See LeBlanc v.

Bowe-Connor v. McDonald

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2015

See McMillian v. District of Columbia, No. 05-2127, 2006 WL 6927884, at *1 (D.D.C. Sept. 25, 2006); see also Phelps v. Stomber, 883 F. … Date: February 25, 2015 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Durant v. District of Columbia Government

932 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2013

See Durant v. … Faragher v.

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).

Greene v. Wilson

150 F. Supp. 958 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 1957

It was at this time, upon the abolishment of the Industrial Employment Review Board, and immediately prior to the establishment of the new Boards, that the communication complained of was written in conformity to paragraph … Wong Yang Sung v. McGrath, 1950, 339 U.S. 33, 50 , 70 S.Ct. 445, 454 , 94 L.Ed. 616 . Order accordingly.

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).

Greater Southeast Community Hospital v. Heckler

602 F. Supp. 764 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 1985

See Villa View Community Hospital, Inc. v. Heckler, 728 F.2d 539, 541-42 (D.C.Cir.1984); Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d 812, 814 (D.C.Cir.1981). … See Psychiatric Institute of Washington, D.C., Inc. v. Schweiker, 669 F.2d 812 (D.C.Cir.1981). 2 .

United States Institute of Peace v. Jackson

District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 2025

In Myers v. … See Ryder v.

Seabulk Transmarine I, Inc. v. Dole

645 F. Supp. 196 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 1986

In Moore-McCormack Lines, Inc. v. … Ass’n v.

Bender v. Jordan

570 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2008

See Bender v. … Bender sought to oust had already resigned from Board); Bender v. Jordan, 439 F.Supp.2d 139 (D.D.C.2006) (granting Mr.

Jones v. Wainwright

744 F. Supp. 2d 341 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2010

At the outset, petitioner’s claims arising from the Parole Board’s actions are moot, see Franklin v. … Parole Board. See Sutherland v.

Pan American Airways Corp. v. Air Line Pilots Assoc., Int'l.

206 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2002

Air Transport Ass’n of America v. … See, e.g., Air Line Pilots Assoc. v.

Birnberg v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

389 F. Supp. 340 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 1975

Williams v. WMATC, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 342 , 415 F. 2d 922 (1968), cert. denied sub nom. D. C. Transit v. Williams, 393 U.S. 1081 , 89 S.Ct. 860 , 21 L.Ed.2d 773 (1969); Saunders v. WMATA, supra. … Here there is a full administrative record which facilitated review of the Board’s decision by the Court. Thus, there is no necessity in this case for findings or reasons. EDF v.

Hall v. Wormuth

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2024

It considers “whether the [Board’s] decision making process was deficient, not whether [the] decision was correct.” Kreis v. Sec’y of Air Force, 406 F.3d 684, 686 (D.C. Cir. 2005); see also Lakner v. … Though it appears this evidence did not outweigh the factors favoring separation, “it is well within the [Board]’s discretion to find[] some pieces of evidence more persuasive than others.” Hayes v.

Kinnear v. Marzall

95 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 1951

Or, as stated in Florence-Mayo Nuway Co. v. … So far as the additional claim 16 is concerned, this court has no jurisdiction to act thereon, because the same was not *59 passed upon by the Board of Appeals. Cherry-Burrell Corp. v. Coe, 79 U.S.App.

Bowie v. Ashcroft

283 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2003

Brown, 199 F.3d at 455 . … Brown, 199 F.3d at 457 .

Gold v. State Plaza, Inc.

435 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2006

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has determined that in seeking in-junctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j), the Board is acting on behalf of the public. See Muniz v. … See Miller v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 449 , 456-59 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc); Kinney v. Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d 485 (7th Cir.1989); and Maram v.

McKesson Corp. v. Islamic Republic of Iran

520 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 18, 2007

Piper v. … Hebah v.

Penello v. International Union, United Mine Workers

88 F. Supp. 935 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 1950

v. … As the National Labor Relations Board sa-id in National Maritime Union of America, 78 N.L.R.B. 971 , -sustained, N.L.R.B. v.

United States v. Gillette Co.

828 F. Supp. 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 1993

Therefore, this case is distinguishable from Brown Shoe and the other cases cited by defendants. … Defendant cites the following cases for this preclusion: Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 326 , 82 S.Ct. 1502, 1524 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962); Liggett & Myers, Inc. v.