Case law

Citizens for Responsibility & Ethics in Washington v. Federal Election Commission

164 F. Supp. 3d 113 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2015

Senate in Massachusetts, to “call [candidate] Scott Brown and tell him you agree Washington should listen to us,” id. ¶ 57 , and stated in relation to a U.S. … See FEC v.

Dunmar v. Ailes

230 F. Supp. 87 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 1964

The Board made the following majority finding: “The Board finds that Cadet John H. … See Harmon v. Brucker, 355 U.S. 579, 581-582 , 78 S.Ct. 433 , 2 L.Ed.2d 503 .

United States v. Foster

566 F. Supp. 1403 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 1983

See Brown v. U.S., 656 F.2d 361 (8th Cir. 1981), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1059 , 102 S.Ct. 611 , 70 L.Ed.2d 598 (1981); United States v. … Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963); see Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 602 , 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d 416 (1975); Taylor v.

Rogler v. Biglow

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “[A] complaint 3 Ms. Rogler appears to be attempting to state a cause of action under Bivens v. … Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 835 (1976). She cannot recast her Title VII retaliation claims as constitutional claims. Ethnic Employees of the Library of Cong. v. Boorstin, 751 F.2d 1405, 1414-15, n.12 & 13 (D.C.

Powers v. Donley

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2012

See Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F. Supp. 2d 76, 89-90 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing National Wilderness Inst. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 2005 WL 691775, at *7 (D.D.C. 2005); Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. … See, e.g., id. at 1514 (military records corrections boards benefit from an “unusually deferential application of the ‘arbitrary or capricious’ standard”); Cargill v. Marsh, 902 F.2d 1006, 1008 (D.C.

Arif Naqvi v. Turkish Airlines, Inc.

80 F. Supp. 3d 234 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2015

See Dogbe v. … ”— manifest on board the airline itself.

United States v. Bryan

72 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 1947

Somewhat similar subpoenas were held valid in Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134, 138 , 48 S.Ct. 288 , 72 L.Ed. 500 ; and Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478, 483 , 33 S.Ct. 158 , 57 L.Ed. 309 . … Finally, in the case of United States v. Edward K.

Maniar v. Wolf

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2026

When she was again unable to print her own boarding pass, she had to speak with an airline clerk who “had to get permission from . . . the TSC[] before issuing [her] a boarding pass.” Id. ¶ 94. … See, e.g., Abdi v.

Fid. & Dep. Co. v. PRESIDENT & DIRECTORS, ETC.

483 F. Supp. 1142 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 1980

United States v. Seckinger, 397 U.S. 203, 216 , 90 S.Ct. 880, 888 , 25 L.Ed.2d 224 (1970). This canon of construction has been vigorously applied in insurance cases. See Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. … Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 376 F.Supp. 901, 906 (W.D.Okl. 1973).

MacKay v. Hoffman

403 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 1975

Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. FPC, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 106 , 259 F.2d 921 (1958), Murray v. Kunzig, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 256 , 462 F.2d 871 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, sub nom., Sampson v. … As is so in the case of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, see Ogden v. Zuckert, 111 U.S.App.D.C. at 401 , 298 F.2d at 315 ; Turner v. Callaway, 371 F.Supp. at 191 .

Harris v. Fulwood

989 F. Supp. 2d 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2013

On July 30, 2012, the National Appeals Board affirmed the Commission’s revocation decision, finding petitioner’s claim in part “moot because on July 18, 2012, after you filed your appeal, you were convicted [of the Maryland … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002); see Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39-40 (D.C.

United States v. Exxon Corp.

470 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 1979

In Service v. … In Vitarelli v.

Duckworth v. the United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 2009

Tranor v. Brown, 913 F. Supp. 388, 391 (E.D. Pa. 1996); Burstein v. Applied Extrusion Techs., Inc., 829 F. Supp. 106, 110 (D. … Brown, Jr. GARRETT E. BROWN, JR., U.S.D.J. 7

Mori v. Department of the Navy

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2010

P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1995). … Decisions of military boards are reviewable by an “unusually deferential” standard. Kreis v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1989); see also Miller v.

Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army

335 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2004

See, e.g., Aiken v. … Walker v. Shannon, 848 F.Supp. 250, 254-55 (D.D.C.1994) (holding that it is not the function of the court to serve as a “super correction board”).

Lockett v. Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2023

Godfrey v. Iverson, 559 F.3d 569, 571 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Brown v. Argenbright Sec., Inc., 782 A.2d 752, 760 (D.C. 2001)). … DeWitt v. District of Columbia, 43 A.3d 291, 296 (D.C. 2012). A favorable termination “must reflect on the merits of the underlying action.” Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1246 (D.C. 1986).

Nevada Irrigation District v. Sobeck

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2021

(“the State Board”). … Aishat v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 288 F. Supp. 3d 261, 269 (D.D.C. 2018). Here, the State Board’s preferred forum is the Eastern District. Mot. at 36–41.

Marcus v. Department of Treasury

813 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2011

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. … Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 825 (1976); see also Kizas v. Webster, 707 F.2d 524, 541-43 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“The Title VII remedy declared exclusive for federal employees in Brown v.

Johnson v. Sullivan

748 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2010

The plaintiff counters that the doctrine of collateral estoppel does not apply in this case, relying on the District of Columbia Court of Appeals decision in Brown v. Jonz, 572 A.2d 455 (D.C.1990). … The plaintiffs reliance on Brown is misplaced. The actual holding in Brown pertained only to the tolling of the statute of limitations while the plaintiff was incarcerated. In Smith v.

Friedman v. U.S. Secret Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2014

COLUMBIA ________________________________ ) DONALD FRIEDMAN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. … DATE: January 2, 2014 /s/ KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge