Case law

Cunningham v. United National Bank of Washington

710 F. Supp. 861 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 1989

First, one of the board members has testified that it was less than clear to her whether the board formally voted to fire Ms. … Ridgewells Caterer, Inc. v. Nelson, 688 F.Supp. 760, 764 (D.D.C.1988).

Blevins v. Orr

553 F. Supp. 750 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 1982

In challenging that refusal, Blevins is precluded from arguing that his personnel file was inaccurate or incomplete when considered by the FY 75 Selection Board because the decision in Blevins v. … Such claims of impropriety concerning selection boards are not ripe for judicial determination until administrative remedies are exhausted, subsequent to an AFBCMR ruling. See Knehans v.

Metroil, Inc. v. ExxonMobil Oil Corp.

724 F. Supp. 2d 70 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 2010

Holy Land Found, for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

Bralich v. Republican National Committee

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2020

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). This complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a).

Willingham v. Gonzales

391 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 2005

Mack v. Strauss, 134 F.Supp.2d 103, 114 (D.D.C.2001); see also Brown, 199 F.3d at 452 ; Teneyck v. Omni Shoreham Hotel, 365 F.3d 1139, 1150 (D.C.Cir.2004). … See Brown, 199 F.3d at 452 ; Mitchell v. Baldrige, 759 F.2d 80, 86 (D.C.Cir.1985).

Burlington Northern Railroad v. United Transportation Union

822 F. Supp. 797 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 1991

Co. v. … Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297 , 64 S.Ct. 95 , 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943); General Committee of Adjustment v. Southern Pacific Co., 320 U.S. 338 , 64 S.Ct. 142 , 88 L.Ed. 85 (1943).

Quainoo v. Holder

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2013

Powell v. McCormack, 395 U.S. 486, 496 (1969). … Date: July 10, 2013 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District

Matthews v. District of Columbia

730 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 9, 2010

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (quoting Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 , 78 S.Ct. 99 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957)); accord Erickson v. … Plaintiffs’ failure to describe in their complaint any particular conduct by Officers Bracket, Brown, Jackson-Maulfair, Melby, Nguyen, or Sowers precludes them from proceeding on this theory.

Speight v. Fulwood

778 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 2011

See United States Parole Comm’n v. … See LoBue v.

Cody v. Flymo

306 F. Supp. 728 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 1969

The central issue before the Board was whether Cody, the junior party with the earlier conception date, had a machine of practical efficacy and utility. Callison v. Dean, 70 F.2d 55 (10th Cir. 1934); Burson v. … Hildreth v. Mastoras, 257 U.S. 27 , 42 S.Ct. 20 , 66 L.Ed. 112 (1921). The Board’s reliance on Elmore v. Schmitt, supra, is misplaced.

George Hyman Construction Co. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

621 F. Supp. 898 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 1985

Inc. v. WMATA, No. 83-1125, slip op. at 10 (D.D.C. June 21, 1984) (quoting Board of Contract Appeals Reconsid. at 3). … Morris v. WMATA, 702 F.2d 1037, 1041 (D.C.Cir.1983); Heffez v. WMATA, 569 F.Supp. 1551, 1555-56 (D.D.C. 1983).

S. S. W., Inc. v. Air Transport Ass'n

91 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 1950

, therefore, that United States Navigation Co., Inc., v. … in abeyance until the Board has made its determination, in accordance with the hold *272 ing of the Supreme Court in the case of General American Tank Corp. v.

United States v. H & R Block, Inc.

833 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 2011

FTC v. H.J. Heinz Co., 246 F.3d 708, 713 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (quoting Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 323 (1962)). … FTC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc. 548 F.3d 1028, 1037-38 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Brown, J.) (quoting Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 325).9 See also FTC v. CCC Holdings, Inc., 605 F. Supp. 2d 26, 38 (D.D.C. 2009).

Citizen Potawatomi Nation v. Salazar

624 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2009

However, because the Board’s collateral estoppel decision is upheld, the Court need not reach the Board’s alternative reasoning. See United States v. … In Ramah Navajo School Board, Inc. v.

D.P. v. Washington Leadership Academy Pcs

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2019

His mother’s appeal of the expulsion resulted in WLA’s Board of Trustees’ affirming the decision in October. Id., ¶ 38. … Blue v. Dist. of Columbia, 811 F.3d 14, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (first alteration in original) (quoting Bd. of Cty. Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 411 (1997)).

Novell, Inc. v. United States

109 F. Supp. 2d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2000

See Intervenor-Def.’s Reply in Supp. of Mot. to Dismiss at 14; see also Brown v. … Among the cases cited in that discussion is Pickus v.

Penny v. U.S. Department of Justice

646 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2009

See SafeCard Servs., Inc. v. … Iturralde v. Comptroller of Currency, 315 F.3d 311, 315 (D.C.Cir.2003); see Perry v.

Buckingham v. Winter

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2011

For simplicity’s sake, the Court refers to the decision under review as the Board’s. See Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319, 320 n.* (D.C. … See Kreis v.

1199DC, National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees v. National Union of Hospital & Health Care Employees

394 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 1975

The defendant, on the other hand, claims by affidavit that those provisions were properly interpreted by the Executive Board (pursuant to Article V, § 6 of the constitution which gives the Board the right to interpret the … In Vestal v.

Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen

258 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 1966

In the case of Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co. v. … In the case of Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. New York Central Railroad Co., the plaintiff is moving for a preliminary injunction.