Case law

Charlton v. Donley

611 F. Supp. 2d 73 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 1, 2009

See Smalls v. … See Kreis v. Sec’y of Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1511 (D.C.Cir.1989). It is established that military records correction boards’ decisions are subject to judicial review under the APA. See Dickson v.

Ross v. United States Capitol Police

195 F. Supp. 3d 180 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2016

At the end of the letter, the Chief also reminded Ross that he could “of course, opt to resign or retire at any time prior to final approval by the Capitol Police Board.” … DATE: June 30, 2016 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

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).

Marshall v. District of Columbia

392 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 1975

Braunfeld v. Brown, supra, 366 U.S. 599 at 603 , 81 S.Ct.. 1144 at 1146, 6 L.Ed.2d 563 . … However, in the recent decision of Brown v. D. C. Transit System, Inc., No. 73-2089 (D.C.

Organic Trade Association v. United States Department of Agriculture

District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 2026

Citizen, Inc. v. … Instead, as noted above, any harmful effects of the USDA’s alleged non-consultation with the Board “will stem from the [OLPS Rule], not the [Withdrawal Rule].” Clean Water Action v. Pruitt, 315 F. Supp. 3d at 89.

Short v. Fulwood

742 F. Supp. 2d 133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 2010

Board of Parole pursuant to the regulations formally adopted in 1985 and published in the District of Columbia Municipal Regulations in 1987 (the “1987 Regulations”). See Sellmon v. … V & XIV).) Plaintiffs complaint sought a new parole hearing and determination based on the D.C. Parole Board’s 1987 Regulations and 1991 Policy Guideline. {Id. at 18.)

Fraternal Order of Police v. United States

981 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 2, 1997

United Food and Commercial Workers Union Local 751 v. Brown Group, Inc., 517 U.S. 544 , -, 116 S.Ct. 1529, 1534 , 134 L.Ed.2d 758 (1996). … See, e.g., Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. Murgia, 427 U.S. 307, 312 , 96 S.Ct. 2562, 2566 , 49 L.Ed.2d 520 (1976); Association of Civilian Technicians v. FLRA, 756 F.2d 172, 177 (D.C.Cir.1985).

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.

Wheeler v. Azar

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 29, 2022

Wheeler sought a second opinion of the recommendation from Mark Brown, Little’s supervisor. Id. at 26–27 (emails between Wheeler and Brown); Def.’s SMF ¶ 7. … Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (quoting United States v. Diebold, Inc., 369 U.S. 654, 655 (1962) (per curiam)).

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.

Mobil Oil Corp. v. Dann

421 F. Supp. 995 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 1976

Whether in fact the Board might have discriminated against Mobil, however inadvertently, the Commissioner did not consider at all relevant. II. In Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. … See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 420 , 91 S.Ct. 814 , 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). In so doing, this Court is in no way implying what the Commissioner’s decision should be.

Augustus v. Locke

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2010

Instead, the Court concludes this court’s decision in Brown v. Tomlinson, 462 F. Supp. 2d 16 (D.D.C. 2006) – which holds that, pursuant to 29 C.F.R. … Accordingly, the Court concludes that there is no reason for it to stray from Brown, finding the decision both well-reasoned and consistent with Circuit authority. See Saksenasingh v.

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).

Bublitz v. Brownlee

309 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2004

Kidwell v. Dep’t of the Army, Board for Correction of Military Records, 56 F.3d at 284 . … Kidwell v. Dep’t of the Army, Board for Correction of Military Records, 56 F.3d at 286 ; see also Wolfe v.

Wilkinson v. Legal Services Corp.

865 F. Supp. 891 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 21, 1994

Common Cause v. Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 674 F.2d 921 , 928 (D.C.Cir.1982) (citation omitted); see Clark-Cowlitz Joint Operating Agency v. … See Dana v. McCalpin, No. 82-542 (D.D.C. Oct. 5, 1982), vacated as moot, 766 F.2d 575 (D.C.Cir.1985); cf. National Treasury Employees Union v. Reagan, 663 F.2d 239, 246 (D.C.Cir.1981).

Drivers, Chauffeurs & Helpers Local Union No. 639 v. Seagram Sales Corp.

531 F. Supp. 364 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 1981

Charles Dowd Box Co. v. Courtney, 368 U.S. 502 , 82 S.Ct. 519 , 7 L.Ed.2d 483 (1962). The Board may well have exclusive jurisdiction over this matter. See: San Diego Buildings Trades v. … However, even if the Board has exclusive jurisdiction over the matter, we would have to remand the action to Superior Court. City of Galveston v. Int’l Org. of Masters, Mates & Pilots, supra; Jay Foods, Inc. v.

Hyatt v. Dudas

393 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2005

In any event, this Court does not have the authority to direct the issuance of a patent, even where it concludes that the Board has erred as a matter of law. See Gould v. … .”); see also Dickinson v.

Armenian Genocide Museum & Memorial, Inc. v. Cafesjian Family Foundation, Inc.

691 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2010

Laningham v. U.S. … Second, CFF contends that the Building and Operations Committee cannot authorize lawsuits without specific involvement from the Board. Citing Stern v.

Nation v. Dalton

107 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2000

Sargisson v. … There is no requirement that a records-correction claim first be presented for review to an appropriate Board. Under Darby v.

Butler v. California State Disbursement Unit

990 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2013

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the F ederal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l987). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). As drafted, the complaint fails to comply with the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a), and it will be dismissed.