Case law

Otis Elevator Co. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

432 F. Supp. 1089 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 1976

Brown advised Mr. … Peter Brown of WMATA, Plaintiff’s Exhibit # 12.

Spokane, Portland & Seattle Railway Co. v. Order of Railway Conductors & Brakemen

265 F. Supp. 892 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 4, 1967

of Locomotive Engineers v. … until the Board acts.

Three Lower Counties Community Health Services Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

517 F. Supp. 2d 431 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 2007

F [Decision of the Board].) … See also Day v. D.C.

Singh v. Bowsher

609 F. Supp. 454 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1984

Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 460 U.S. 711 , 103 S.Ct. 1478, 1482 , 75 L.Ed.2d 403 (1983). … Postal Service Board of Governors v. Aikens, 103 S.Ct. at 1482 n. 3, this Court concludes that none of the complained of actions were unlawful.

Lewis v. Government of the District of Columbia

534 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2008

Bush v. Butler, 521 F.Supp.2d 63, 70-71 (D.D.C.2007) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 , 98 S.Ct. 2396 , 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978)). … Georgiades v. Martin-Trigona, 729 F.2d 831, 834 (D.C.Cir.1984); see Blackman v. District of Columbia, 355 F.Supp.2d 171, 172-73 (D.D.C.2005).

Hitachi Koki Co., Ltd. v. Doll

620 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 29, 2009

On June 21, 2007, the Board denied rehearing and emphasized that the rejection of Claim 1 was consistent with the Supreme Court’s intervening decision in KSR International Co. v. … However, because plaintiff may not raise new issues that were not presented to the Examiner or the Board, see Hyatt v. Dudas, No. 03-CV-0901, 2005 WL 5569663 , at *5 (D.D.C. Sept. 30, 2005) (citing DeSeversky v.

Smith v. Reilly

604 F. Supp. 2d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2009

The District of Columbia Board of Parole 1. … Cosgrove v. Thornburgh, 703 F.Supp. 995, 997 (D.D.C.1988).

Mykonos v. Dc Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2026

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). … See Brown v.

In Re Rail Freight Fuel Surcharge Antitrust Litigation

593 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 31, 2008

See Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d at 1276 ; Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). B. Rule 12(b)(1) Federal courts are courts of limited jurisdiction. … Corp. v.

United States ex rel. Athanasopoulos v. Reid

110 F. Supp. 200 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 1953

Bartsch v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 1949, 175 F.2d 245 ; United States ex rel. Castro-Louzan v. Zimmerman, D.C.Pa.1950, 94 F.Supp. 22 . … Trinler v. Carusi, 3 Cir., 1948, 166 F.2d 457 , vacated on other grounds, 3 Cir., 1948, 168 F.2d 1014 ; De Koning v. Zimmerman, D.C.Pa.1950, 89 F.Supp. 891 . Cf. United States ex rel. Zdunic v.

Shao v. Roberts

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 8, 2024

See, e.g., Brown v. WMATA, 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016) (dismissing a complaint sua sponte for failing to comply with Rule 8(a)); Hamrick v. United States, No. 10-cv-857, 2010 WL 3324721, at *1 (D.D.C. … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 499 (D.D.C. 1977).

Miessner v. Hoschke

131 F.2d 865 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 1942

The Board of Appeals affirmed the findings of the Examiner of Interferences that Hoschke had established conception in April, 1928, and that Miessner had established conception at least by October 6, 1932. Petrie v. … The Board of Appeals reversed the Examiner as to Count 1, and awarded priority to Hoschke upon both counts. The latter award was sustained by the District Court. Count 1 only is involved here. Akers v.

Holmes-Martin v. Leavitt

569 F. Supp. 2d 184 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2008

Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . 2. … Brown v. Brody, *205 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C.Cir.1999); Stewart v. Ashcroft, 352 F.3d 422, 428 (D.C.Cir.2003); Carroll v. England, 321 F.Supp.2d 58, 68 (D.D.C.2004).

Mallgren v. United States Persons With Naturally Occuring Female Reproductive Organ

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 2025

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). … See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). The Court dismisses the complaint for the simple reason that there are no factual allegations supporting an actual legal claim.

Baber v. Schweiker

539 F. Supp. 993 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 1982

See also, Piel v. Brown, 361 So.2d at 94, citing Sloss-Sheffield Steel and Iron Co. v. Watford, 245 Ala. 425 , 17 So.2d 166 (1944). … See Skipworth v. Skipworth, 360 So.2d 975 ; Piel v. Brown, 361 So.2d 90 .

Doe v. District of Columbia

796 F. Supp. 559 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 1992

Prior to addition of this provision in 1988, the Supreme Court concluded in School Board of Nassau County v. … See Cortes v. Board of Governors, 766 F.Supp. 623, 625 (N.D.Ill.1991). 15 . In Consolidated Rail Corp. v.

Lemus v. Grover Montano Corp.

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2026

Whiting v. AARP, 701 F. Supp. 2d 21, 29 (D.D.C. 2010) (quoting Pearson v. Chung, 961 A.2d 1067, 1075 (D.C. 2008)); see also Krukas v. AARP, Inc., 376 F. … See Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016, 1024 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“To prevail on a claim of breach of contract, a party must establish ... damages caused by breach.”) (cleaned up). The Court disagrees.

Shiheiber v. Jp Morgan Chase Bank, N.A.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2026

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Still, pro se litigants must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). This pleading alleges no meaningful facts.

Davis v. D.C. Department of Corrections

623 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2009

See Johnson v. … V 8c. 5 .

Loving v. Internal Revenue Service

917 F. Supp. 2d 67 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2013

See Goldsmith v. … Brown v. Gardner, 513 U.S. 115, 118 (1994). Indeed, the D.C. Circuit has specifically rejected the argument that a statute is ambiguous when it fails to define a broad term. See Goldstein v.