Case law

Ani v. Power

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 15, 2024

First, the Agency argues that because Ani received an adverse judgment from the Merit Systems Protection Board (MSPB) on her whistleblowing claims, only the Federal Circuit or other court of appeals can provide further … Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C. Cir. 1985). III. ANALYSIS The Court concludes that all of Plaintiff’s claims must be dismissed.

United States v. Scurry

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2018

See Um'ted States v. Savoy, 883 F. Supp. 2d 101 (D.D.C. 2012). … Um`tea' States v. Scurry, 821 F.3d 1, 8 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (internal citation omitted).

Reuss v. Balles

73 F.R.D. 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 1976

deputy chairman of the respective boards. … See e. g., Harrington v. Schlesinger, supra. Metcalf v.

Pate v. United States

277 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 23, 2003

Montero v. … We believe that parole board officials perform functionally comparable tasks to judges when they decide to grant, deny or revoke parole.”). But see King v.

Squire v. Fulwood

75 F. Supp. 3d 548 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2014

The Board, therefore, had authority over Squire – and a typographical error in the document memorializing the jurisdiction of conviction does not change that fact. See, e.g., Jackson v. U.S. … See Hammons v.

Council of Prison Locals v. Howlett

562 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 1983

Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 301 , 64 S.Ct. 95, 97 , 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943). … That the Board may have made an error of fact or law is insufficient; the Board must have acted without statutory authority. Physicians Nat. House Staff Ass’n v.

American Council of Life Insurers v. District of Columbia Health Benefit Exchange Authority

73 F. Supp. 3d 65 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 13, 2014

Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2601 (2013). The Court highlighted the “illustrative” case of Brown v. … Id. at 2600-01 (citing Brown v.

Wayne v. Three Male Suspects

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2025

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v.

Washington Teachers' Union, Local 6 v. American Federation of Teachers

751 F. Supp. 2d 38 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 1, 2010

Bank v. … See Monzillo v.

Crum v. United States Parole Commission

814 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 1993

In particular Petitioner believes that the cases of Cosgrove v. Smith, 697 F.2d 1125 (D.C.Cir.1983), and its progeny Cosgrove v. … However, the habeas relief recognized in Morrissey v.

Di Lella v. University of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2009

As the Board points out, in the absence of proper service of process, a court is unable to exercise personal jurisdiction over a defendant. And such is so even if a defendant had actual notice. Adams v. … Significantly, as stated by the District of Columbia Circuit in Smith v. District of Columbia, 430 F.3d 450 (D.C.

Mitchell v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2024

Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016, 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 412 (D.C. Cir. 2005)). … Instead, her allegations are more akin to Mohmand v. Broadcasting Board of Governors, No. 17-CV-618, 2018 WL 4705800 (D.D.C.

Leopold v. Pittman

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2022

Capitol Police Board (“USCP Board”), which authorization has not been granted. Defs.’ SMF ¶ 8; OGC Decl. ¶ 9 (citing 2 U.S.C. § 1979). … to the Board’s statutory authority to regulate the distribution of such security information.

NAWA USA, INC. v. Bottler

533 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2008

Kanzlsperger at a board meeting on June 21, 2003, when Defendants had been removed as board members on May 23, 2003. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; NAWA opposes. II. … NAWA makes no allegation that the February 2002 board meeting was related to the alleged improper sale of NAWA shares to Mr. Kanzlsperger at the June 21, 2003 board meeting.

Dews v. WALDERN

590 F. Supp. 2d 42 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 5, 2008

Parole Com’n v. … See Jones v.

Gonzalez v. U.S. Department of State

135 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2001

Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F.Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C.1995). … A court is not empowered to “substitute its judgment” for that of the Board, but the court is required to give the Board’s decision “a thorough, probing, in-depth review.” Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v.

Speiser v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

670 F. Supp. 380 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 1986

See Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Kizas v. Webster, 707 F.2d 524 (D.C.Cir.1983). 6 . … See, e.g., Jarrell v. United States Post Office, 753 F.2d 1088 (D.C.Cir.1985); Acklin v. National Gallery of Art Board of Trustees, C.A. No. 85-4041 (D.D.C. May 2, 1986). 10 .

Stutler v. Heflin

46 F. Supp. 539 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 1942

West v. Bauduit, 59 App.D.C. 74, 75 , 33 F.2d 370 . … Best v. District of Columbia, 291 U. S. 411, 415 , 54 S.Ct. 487 , 78 L.Ed. 882 ; Gunning v. Cooley, 281 U.S. 90, 94 , 50 S.Ct. 231 , 74 L.Ed. 720 ; Jackson v.

Shima v. Shima

139 F.2d 533 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 27, 1943

Shima v. Shima, 75 U.S.App.D.C. 370 , 130 F.2d 809 . D.c.Code 1940, § 16-410. Myers v. Myers, 55 App.D.C. 224 , 4 F.2d 300 ; Tendler v. Tendler, 56 App.D.C. 296 , 12 F.2d 831 ; Boardman v. … See Brown, Personal Property, (1936) 503, 504.

Olson v. Rice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2009

Schoenbohm v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243, 250 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting ICC v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270, 283 (1987)). … It was the Board’s job, and not the 4 Court’s, to weigh the evidence. Id. at 14 (“The FSGB is responsible for making findings of fact.”) (citing Toy v.