Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersdcd

10,000+ results

0.67s

  • Holston v. Vance-Cooks

    District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2013

    See Allen v. … Date: November 5, 2013 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • U-Ahk-Vroman-Sanchez v. United States Department of Defense

    District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2021

    Stewart v. Sackley, 251 F. Supp. 3d 138, 156 (D.D.C. 2017) (cleaned up); see also Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. NLRB, 865 F.3d 630, 638 (D.C. … V.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Motley v. Southeast Neighborhood House (In re Southeast Neighborhood House)

    93 B.R. 303 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 1988

    See McCreery v. RSA Management, Inc., 249 Ga. 43 , 287 S.E.2d 203 (1982); Essential Enterprises Corp. v. Automatic Steel Prods., 39 *306 DeL.Ch. 371, 164 A.2d 437 (1960); Gentry-Futch Co. v. … See Thompson v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • In Re Bullock

    103 F. Supp. 639 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1952

    In United States v. … Ludolph v. Board of Police Commissioners, 30 Cal.App.2d 211 , 86 P.2d 118, 121 ; Application of Scro, 200 Misc. 688 , 108 N.Y.S.2d 305, 307 .

    Cited 32 timesPublished
  • Poole v. Harvey

    571 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2008

    Thus, when the court reviews the “final decision of a military correction board, the court has a very limited scope of review.” Epstein v. Geren, 539 F.Supp.2d 267, 275 (D.D.C.2008). … Frizelle, 111 F.3d at 177 (stating that a military corrections board acts arbitrarily when it fails to respond to non-frivolous arguments); Appleby v.

    Cited 21 timesPublished
  • Truitt v. Barrett

    District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2021

    Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F. Supp. 2d 76, 89-90 10 (D.D.C. 2006). … (quoting Gilligan v. Morgan, 413 U.S. 1, 10 (1973)).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Thomas v. District of Columbia Government

    580 F. Supp. 2d 142 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2008

    Sparrow v. … See Moody v.

    Cited 6 timesPublished
  • Bosken v. United States

    796 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 1992

    This Court must affirm the Board’s decision that Plaintiff’s claim is without merit. In reviewing a decision of the Foreign Service Grievance Board this Court must afford great deference to Board’s decision. See U.S. v. … See id. at 513-514 ; F.T.C. v. Indiana Federation of Dentists, 476 U.S. 447, 454 , 106 S.Ct. 2009, 2015-2016 , 90 L.Ed.2d 445 (1986).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Elchibegoff v. Dulles

    123 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 1954

    Arant v. Lane, 1919, 249 U.S. 367, 372 , 39 S.Ct. 293, 294 , 63 L.Ed. 650, 652 ; Grasse v. … As is indicated in Grasse v. Snyder, supra, his administrative remedies were exhausted and the doors of this Court open to plaintiff in February, 1948, when his appeal was denied by the Board of Appeals and Review.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Seed Company Limited v. Westerman

    840 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 5, 2012

    In June 2002, the Board granted Seed’s request to receive the benefit of the July 31, 1991 date associated with the JP 371 application (“Board’s June 2002 decision”). Id. ¶ 23. … to the Board.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Cole v. Fulwood

    879 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2012

    Parole Commission (“USPC”) assumed the responsibilities of the District of Columbia Board of Parole (“the Board”). See Taylor v. Reilly, No. 10-5153, 2012 WL 2892392 at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2012). … See Sellmon v. Reilly, 561 F. Supp. 2d 46, 51-52 (D.D.C. 2008). For the reasons set forth in those opinions, it again rejects the argument that the Board had unlimited discretion. B.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace & Agricultural Implement Workers of America v. National Right to Work Legal Defense & Education Foundation, Inc.

    376 F. Supp. 1060 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 1974

    W. v. National Right to Work, 366 F.Supp. at 48 . … N.L.R.B. v. Industrial Union of Marine & Ship Workers, 391 U.S. 418 , 88 S.Ct. 1717 , 20 L.Ed.2d 706 (1968) ; Roberts v. N.L.R.B., supra. .

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Egilman v. Keller & Heckman, LLP.

    401 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 2005

    Brown v. Gino Morena Enters., 44 F.Supp.2d 41, 52 (D.D.C.1999). … Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 3 F.Supp.2d 1473, 1475 (D.D.C.1998) (citations omitted). 7 .

    Cited 17 timesPublished
  • McKinley v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

    District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2011

    Dep’t of Justice v. … See Mason v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • 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.

    Reversed in part, on other grounds by Federal Prescription Service, Inc. v. American Pharmaceutical Ass'n, 663 F.2d 253 (1981)Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Sisse v. Moniz

    388 F. Supp. 3d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2019

    See Cruz v. … ."); see also Manguriu v.

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Fox v. District of Columbia

    990 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 25, 1997

    Plaintiffs First Amendment Claim The Supreme Court addressed the parameters of a public employee’s First Amendment rights in Pickering v. Board of Education 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). … Tygrett v. Barry, 627 F.2d 1279, 1282 (D.C.Cir.1980) (emphasis supplied); see also Brasslett v.

    Cited 20 timesPublished
  • Wise v. United States Department of Justice

    District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 2025

    BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he is a “triple-board-certified oral surgeon,” who faced, in one year, fifty-one “board complaints,” which resulted in the suspension of his license and the imposition of a $45,000 … Jones v. Changsila, 271 F. Supp. 3d 9, 21 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • United States v. Felder

    732 F. Supp. 204 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 1990

    Many of the passengers had already left the bus by the time the officers boarded, but approximately six to ten passengers were still on board. … As Justice Douglas noted in Aptheker v.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • Barber v. District of Columbia Government

    District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2019

    Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … See Browning, 292 F.3d at 242.

    Cited 0 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.