Case law

Walter E. Campbell Co., Inc. v. Hartford Financial Services Group, Inc

48 F. Supp. 3d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 2014

Brown, 980 F.2d 747, 747–48 (D.C. … Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 26 F. Supp. 2d 74, 77 (D.D.C. 1998), quoting Richardson v. Phillip Morris Inc., 950 F. Supp. 700, 702 (D. Md. 1997); see also Sid Richardson Carbon & Gasoline Co. v.

Tewelde v. Albright

89 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 2000

See Baker v. Stuart Broadcasting, 560 F.2d 389 (8th Cir.1977); Armbruster v. Quinn, 711 F.2d 1332 , (6th Cir.1983)(Same); Trevino v. Celanese Corp., 701 F.2d 397, 404 (5th Cir.1983)(same); Rogers v. … The AEA has its own distinctly independent Board and its day-today activities are managed by a professional staff that reports directly to its Board.

American Postal Workers Union, Afl-Cio v. United States Postal Service

District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2010

Postal Workers Union v. U.S. Postal Serv., 550 F.3d 27 (D.C. Cir. 2008). … Carey v. Westinghouse Elec.

Herman v. American Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO

995 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 1997

Brown called the National. 1 The day after Mr. Brown’s call, September 12, 1995, more than 250,000 ballots were sent out to APWU members across the country. On October 5, 1995, Chandler won his election. … See DeArment v. Local 563, 751 F.Supp. 1364 (D.Minn. 1990).

Harmon v. Brucker

137 F. Supp. 475 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 1956

Plaintiff then applied unsuccessfully to the Army Discharge Review Board and the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records to have the character of his discharge changed from Undesirable on the ground that his services … See Patterson v. Lamb, 1947, 329 U.S. 539, 542 , 67 S.Ct. 448 , 91 L.Ed. 485 . 5 . United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 1955, 350 U.S. 11 , 76 S.Ct. 1 .

Wilcox v. Coe

33 F. Supp. 714 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 1940

It is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office. The testimony of the plaintiff is cumulative. … Globe-Union, Inc., v. Chicago Telephone Supply Co., 7 Cir., 103 F.2d 722, 727 . Our Court of Appeals in Abbott v.

Catholic Health Initiatives v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

While the PRM provision itself would be due less deference than a Board decision, see Public Citizen, Inc. v. DHHS, 332 F.3d 654, 660 (D.C. … . § 1395x(v)(1)(A). Plaintiffs argue that the Board’s decision conflicted with the plain language of Section 1395x(v)(1)(A) because it disallowed reimbursement for a “reasonable cost” that was “actually incurred.”

In Re Fed. Nat. Mortg. Ass'n Sec., Derivative, Erisa

725 F. Supp. 2d 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2010

He relies on Mullins v. De Soto Sec. … The other cases were originally captioned as Kellmer v. Raines (Civ. No. 07-1173), Arthur v. Mudd (Civ. No. 07-2130), and Agnes v. Raines (Civ. No. 08-1093).

In re Certain Carriers

241 F. Supp. 1004 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 1965

The Court has given due consideration to the decision of the Supreme Court in Republic Steel Corp. v. … The Court wishes to say that is observations are not to be taken as a criticism of the Board. The Board has performed a difficult ana intricate task in a superb manner.

Wielkoszewski v. Harvey

398 F. Supp. 2d 102 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 20, 2005

“A competent board is one that is statutorily authorized to pass on a service member’s eligibility for disability pay. Normally, a PEB is the first appropriate and competent board to make such a decision.” Coon v. … See Coon v. United States, 30 Fed.Cl. at 536 (holding that where plaintiff was misled as to seriousness of condition, the first competent board’s actions were nonfinal); McFarlane v.

Wagner v. Federal Election Commission

901 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 2012

Brown, ¶¶ 4-5. The last is a policy adviser for USAID, earning $596 per day. See Decl. of Jan W. Miller, ¶ 5. … Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2740-42 (2011). c. Other Objections Plaintiffs throw out a couple more First Amendment objections to see what sticks.

Mack v. Aspen of D.C., Inc.

248 F. Supp. 3d 215 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2017

NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Pa., Inc., 691 F.2d 1117, 1123 (3d Cir. 1982); Rea’d v. Summers, 232 F.3d 933, 938 (D.C. … Cir. 2000) (referring to Browning-Ferris test as a “fairly standard formulation” of the joint employment test); Coles v. Harvey, 471 F. Supp. 2d 46, 50-51 (D.D.C. 2007) (applying Browm'ng-Ferris test).

First National Bank of Homestead v. Watson

363 F. Supp. 466 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 1973

The Board subsequently allowed the acquisition. Plaintiffs did not challenge the application in the administrative proceeding before the Board nor did they appeal the Board’s decision. … Hanly v.

United State v. Philip Morris USA

310 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2004

‘as punishment for some offense.’ ”) (emphasis in original) (quoting Browning-Ferris Industries of Vt., Inc. v. Kelco Disposal, Inc., 492 U.S. 257, 265 , 109 S.Ct. 2909 , 106 L.Ed.2d 219 (1989)). … United States v. Brown, 555 F.2d 407, 417 (5th Cir.1977) (citing cases). See also United States v.

Samuels v. District of Columbia

669 F. Supp. 1133 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 1987

Samuels v. District of Columbia, 770 F.2d 184, 189 (D.C.Cir.1985); Brown v. Housing Authority, 471 F.2d 63, 66-67 (7th Cir.1972). … See Bradley v. Richmond School Board, 416 U.S. 696 , 94 S.Ct. 2006 , 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974).

Alcorn v. Wolfe

827 F. Supp. 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 1993

See Carchman v. Nash, 473 U.S. 716, 719 , 105 S.Ct. 3401, 3403 , 87 L.Ed.2d 516 (1985); Cuyler v. Adams, 449 U.S. 433, 438 , 101 S.Ct. 703, 706-07 , 66 L.Ed.2d 641 (1981). … See McComb v. Wambaugh, 934 F.2d 474, 479 (3rd Cir.1991); Kansas City Area *53 Transp. Auth. v. State of Missouri, 640 F.2d 173, 174 (8th Cir.1981).

E. I. Dupont De Nemours & Co. v. American Cyanamid Co.

120 F. Supp. 697 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 1954

Barrett Co. v. Koppers Co., supra; Boucher Inventions v. Sola Electric Co., supra. … In Mathieson Alkali Works v.

Vreven v. Aarp

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2009

See Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d at 1276; Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). 4  III. … Novelli made these statements to the Board of Directors, “it is hard to see how [plaintiff] could satisfy the requirement of providing . . . ‘fair notice’” to defendant. Bell Atlantic Corp. v.

Furfari v. Pension Benefit Guarantee Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2021

In Davis v. … Institute, Inc. v.

Spine v. Biedermann Motech Gmbh

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2010

See KSR Int’l Co. v. … Stryker also cites Oglesby v.