Case law

Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass'n

484 F. Supp. 1195 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 1980

See also National Society of Professional Engineers v. United States, 435 U.S. 679 , 98 S.Ct. 1355 , 55 L.Ed.2d 637 (1978); Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. … See California Motor Transport Co. v. Trucking Unlimited, supra, 404 U.S. at 513 , 92 S.Ct. at 613 ; Israel v.

A Love of Food I, LLC v. Maoz Vegetarian USA, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2013

.”); see also Buruca v. Dist. of Columbia, 902 F. Supp. 2d 75, 79 n.1 (D.D.C. 2012); United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 285 F.R.D. 133, 135-36 (D.D.C. 2012); Brooks v. Clinton, 841 F. … See Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., 285 F.R.D. at 136 (“If the party was not diligent, the inquiry should end.”) (quoting Johnson v.

Di Lella v. UNIVERSITY OF DIST. OF COLUMBIA

570 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2008

Brown v. Nat'l Acad, of Scis., 844 A.2d 1113, 1118 (D.C.2004) (quoting Delaware State Coll. v. Ricks, 449 U.S. 250, 258 , 101 S.Ct. 498 , 66 L.Ed.2d 431 (1980)). … Board of Curators of Univ. of Missouri v. Horowitz, 435 U.S. 78, 85 , 98 S.Ct. 948 , 55 L.Ed.2d 124 (1978) (quoting Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 581 , 95 S.Ct. 729 , 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975)).

Southeast Conference v. Vilsack

684 F. Supp. 2d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2010

267 million board feet annually. … 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.

Shakir v. Fulwood

108 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2015

See Jones v. Braxton, 647 A.2d 1116, 1117 (D.C. 1994) (§ 104.2 “is clearly not mandatory,” as § 104.11 “expressly authorizes the Board to disregard the suggested timeframes”); Hall v. … See, e.g., Kingsbury v. Fulwood, 902 F.

United States v. Neufield

62 F. Supp. 600 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 1945

However, in the case of Jones v. … V, D.C.Code 1929.

Schoen v. Consumers United Group, Inc.

670 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 1986

See, e.g., Cuddy v. Carmen, 694 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir.1982); Sutton v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 646 F.2d 407 (9th Cir.1981); Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir.1979). … See Belle Isle Corp. v. MacBean, 29 Del.Ch. 261 , 49 A.2d 5, 9 (1946); Mecleary v. John S.

Colonial Bancgroup, Inc v. Pricewaterhousecoopsers LLP

110 F. Supp. 3d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 2015

Ci v. P. 2 6 (b) ( 1) . … See id.; Grant Thornton, LLP v. FDIC, 535 F. Supp. 2d 676, 722 (S.D.W. Va. 2007), rev'd on other grounds sub nom. Ellis v.

Davis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

864 F. Supp. 2d 148 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2012

Corp. v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 648 (1990). … Ass'n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins.

Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co. v. General Electric Co.

167 F. Supp. 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 18, 1958

As pointed out in United States v. … . * * * ” In Shields v.

Heagney v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2025

And on September 8, 2022, the ATF Professional Review Board met to review the OIG report. Id. ¶ 44. On October 24, 2022, the Board notified Mr. … Heagney] alleges that the Board met on September 8, 2022, he does not allege that the Board resolved the investigation that same day.” (citing Compl. ¶ 44)).

Anglo Fabrics Co. v. Fabriken Anglomac

282 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 2, 1968

Plaintiff argues that the Board erred in according “ANGLO” a limited scope of protection in disregard of 15 U.S.C. §§ 1057 (b), 1115(b) (1964), the holding in Contour Chair-Lounge Co. v. … Defendant argues that the Board’s decision was correct in every respect and that the Court is bound by the rule, born of Morgan v.

Legg, Mason & Company, Inc. v. MacKall & Coe, Inc.

351 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 1972

See Brown v. Gilligan, Will & Co., 287 F.Supp. 766 (S.D.N.Y. 1968); Franklin v. Dick, 262 App.Div. 299 , 28 N.Y.S.2d 426 , aff’d, 287 N.Y. 656 , 39 N.E.2d 282 (1941); Cohen v. Thomas, 209 N.Y. 407 , 103 N.E. 708 (1913). … See Brown v. Gilligan, Will & Co., supra.

Gardiner v. Tarr

341 F. Supp. 422 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 1972

See Fein v. Selective Service System, 405 U.S. 365 , 92 S.Ct. 1062 , 31 L.Ed.2d 298 (1972); Oestereich v. Selective Service Board, 393 U.S. 233 , 89 S.Ct. 414 , 21 L.Ed.2d 402 (1968); Clark v. … Swift v. Director, supra, 448 F.2d at 1150 .

Nader v. Allegheny Airlines, Inc.

365 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 18, 1973

boarding on a flight. … Forthwith upon denying boarding to Mr.

Custis v. Cia

118 F. Supp. 3d 252 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 2015

DATE: July 30, 2015 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge … See Rasul v. Bush, 215 F. Supp.2d 55, 61 (D.D.C. 2002), aff'd sub nom., Al Odah v. United States, 321 F.3d 1134 (D.C. Cir. 2003), rev'd on other grounds, Rasul v.

Wilson v. McDonough

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2025

Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (per curiam). The Court will consider all of the pro se party’s filings in reviewing a motion to dismiss. Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. … Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 835 (1976). The statute “precludes actions against federal officials for alleged constitutional violations as well as actions under other federal legislation.” Kizas v.

Nigerians in Diaspora Organization Americas v. Key

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2021

Prior to the Supreme Court’s decision in eBay Inc. v. … See Ferring Pharm., Inc. v. Watson Pharm., Inc., 765 F.3d 205, 213–14 (3d Cir. 2014); Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1249 (9th Cir. 2013); Audi AG v.

Sirmans v. Caldera

27 F. Supp. 2d 248 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 1998

Baker v. United States, 127 F.3d 1081, 1088 (Fed.Cir.1997) (“The government cannot now argue that it wishes to reveal some, but not all, of the relevant information concerning the conduct of the [Board].”). … Baker v. United States, 127 F.3d 1081 (Fed.Cir.1997) (vacating summary judgment for the government in case involving similar procedures by Air Force retirement board).