Case law

Knighten v. United States Parole Commission

105 F. Supp. 3d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2015

See Valona v. United States, 138 F.3d 693, 695 (7th Cir. 1998) (“Parole is a form of ‘custody’, so it is proper to use § 2241 to contest its continuation . . . .”); Ramsey v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, __ F. … “The inquiry is not whether the decision is supported by the preponderance of the evidence, but whether there is a rational basis in the record for the Board’s conclusion.” Id. (citing Misasi v. U.S.

Abbott-Northwestern Hospital v. Leavitt

377 F. Supp. 2d 119 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2005

Standard of Review In reviewing the Board’s decision, the Court is limited to the record before the agency, see Camp v. … In light of this fundamental error in the Board’s decision, it is not entitled to deference. See GTE Serv. Corp. v.

Air Line Pilots Ass'n v. Northwest Airlines, Inc.

444 F. Supp. 1138 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 1978

The Retirement Board in this case constitutes the adjustment board mandated by the statute. … Wadsworth v.

Am. Med. Intern., Inc. v. SEC. of HEW

466 F. Supp. 605 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 1979

See Gosman v. … The Administrator reversed the Board's decision.

United States v. Potter

664 F. Supp. 551 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 1986

As authority, Defendant cites Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure and United States v. Brown, 428 F.2d 1100 (D.C.Cir.1970). Neither authority supports his proposition. … In United States v.

Lincoln Savings & Loan Ass'n v. Wall

743 F. Supp. 901 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 1990

Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856, 2866 , 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983) (quoting, Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. … Kreis v. Secretary of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1514 (D.C.Cir.1989). Here, Congress has conferred a great deal of discretion upon the Bank Board.

Hall v. Nielsen

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 21, 2019

Hall, with Dettling as counsel, initially contested his DHS termination in front of the Merit Systems Protection Board. … See Kaempfer v. Brown, No. 88-7102, 1989 WL 45103, at *3 (D.C. Cir. May 2, 1989); see also Caldwell, 6 F. Supp. 3d at 50–51 (upholding injunction when plaintiff litigated five cases involving over 100 court filings).

Operative Plasterers' & Cement Masons' International Ass'n of the United States & Canada v. Jordan Interiors, Inc.

744 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2010

Deklewa v. … Areas Pension Fund v.

Commonwealth Engineering Co. v. Ladd

199 F. Supp. 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 1961

The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit in Besser v. … This Court held in Isenstead v.

Wadelton v. Department of State

106 F. Supp. 3d 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2015

service and describing the procedures to be followed by the Wadelton reconstituted boards. … The information in this document contains details of an interview with a board member about his role on one of Ms. Wadelton’s promotion boards.” (Vaughn index at 16).

Al-Kharouf v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2020

The other test arises from NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc., 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982). … at 31–32 (citing Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016, 1021–22 (D.C. Cir. 2014)). And second, Plaintiffs identify no District custom or policy linked to Annamalai’s alleged discrimination. Id. at 32–33.

Kosnik v. Peters

31 F. Supp. 2d 151 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 1998

The Secretary may convene a special selection board if he determines that either the decision of the original selection board involved “material error of fact or material administrative error” or that the board did not have … See McDougall v. Widnall, 20 F.Supp.2d 78, 82 (D.D.C.1998); Walker v. Shannon, 848 F.Supp. 250, 254 (D.D.C.1994).

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.

Whitfield v. McPherson Hospital

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 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. The “Statement of Claim” section states “Rule 4.

Tygrett v. Washington

346 F. Supp. 1247 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 1972

This was the approach taken by the Court in Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968), a case cited by both parties here. … See Perry v. Sinderman and Battle v. Mulholland, supra.

Crudup v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2023

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Comm’rs of Bryan Cty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 411 (1997).

Hester v. Paul Public Charter School

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2022

See Brown v. Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 789 F.3d. 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (court should consider facts in pro se plaintiff’s complaint and opposition to motion to dismiss). … Legal Standard As exhaustion under the ADA and Title VII is not jurisdictional, see, e.g., Brown v. Hayden, No. 18-2561, 2021 WL 780816, at *4 (D.D.C. February 27, 2021); Thompson v. United States, 795 Fed.

In Re Interested Party 1

530 F. Supp. 2d 198 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 2008

530 F.Supp.2d 198 (2008) In re INTERESTED PARTY 1 and In re Interested Party 2, In the Matter of United States v. Qantas Airways Limited. Misc. No. 07-567 (JDB). United States District Court, District of Columbia. … Martin, Martin Brown & Sullivan, Ltd., Chicago, IL, for Interested Party 2. Brent C. Snyder, U.S. Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for United States. ORDER JOHN D. BATES District Judge.

Mack v. WP Co.

923 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2013

Akr idge v. Gallaudet Univ., 729 F.Supp.2d 172, 178 (D.D.C.2010) (citing Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984)); accord Ruiz v. … Baker v. Henderson, 150 F.Supp.2d 17, 21-22 *301 (D.D.C.2001) (citing Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. at 151 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 ).

Moses v. Walker

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2009

Supp. 2d at 33 (quoting Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 14 (D.C. Cir. 1985)); see also, e.g., Breen v. Peters, 529 F. … See, e.g., Lutes v. Goldin, 62 F. Supp. 2d 118, 134 (D.D.C. 1999) (“Courts in this jurisdiction have relied upon Brown [v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820 (1976),] and Thorne [v. Cavazos, 744 F.