Case law

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.

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).

Wayne, Jr. v. Metropolitan Police, District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 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. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 1  Plaintiff alleges “Trespassing by Metropolitan Police (D.C.)

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.

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.

Cofield v. Anthem Blue Cross Blue Shield

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2014

Diamond Ventures, LLC v. Barreto, 452 F.3d 892, 900 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Rowland v. California Men's Colony, 506 U.S. 194, 201-02 (1993)); see also Prunte v. Universal Music Group, 484 F. … Ketanji Brown Jackson Ketanji Brown Jackson United States District Judge Date: June 19, 2014

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.

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.

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. United States Department of Commerce

34 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 1998

Kissinger v. Reporters Committee for Freedom of the Press, 445 U.S. 136 , 100 S.Ct. 960 , 63 L.Ed.2d 267 (1980). … Secretary Brown’s Briefing Books, Calendars, and Daily Schedules Plaintiff further requests all of the briefing books, calendars, and daily schedules of the late Secretary Brown.

Lucas v. United States Army Corps of Engineers

789 F. Supp. 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 1992

See Packer v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic States, Inc., 728 F.Supp. 8 (D.D.C.1989). In construing a contract, the Court should give effect to the mutual intentions of the parties. NRM Corp. v. … Haralson v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 655 F.Supp. 1550, 1554-55 (D.D.C.1987).

Hunnicutt v. Watson

183 F. Supp. 330 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 1960

“In discussing the holding of the court in Cincinnati Traction Co. v. … Plaintiff has offered no new evidence sufficient to convince the Court that it should set aside the findings of the Board of Patent Appeals. In Esso Standard Oil Co. v. Sun Oil Co., 97 U.S.

Stem v. England

191 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2001

See Auer v. … See Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v.

Individual Reference Services Group, Inc. v. Federal Trade Commission

145 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2001

FDA v. Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. 120, 121 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000). … Under Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System v.

Rowe v. Deutsche Bank

District Court, District of Columbia · May 11, 2016

S(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2()09); Ciralslcy v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff is a resident of Orlando, Florida.

Magee v. Greenspan

808 F. Supp. 847 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 1991

Chevron v. Natural Resources Defense Council, 467 U.S. 837, 842-45 , 104 S.Ct. 2778, 2781-83 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984); Investment Co. Institute v. FDIC, 815 F.2d 1540, 1550 (D.C.Cir.1987). … III This Court has had prior occasion to interpret the instant statutory provisions in the cases of Anonymous v. FDIC, 619 F.Supp. 866 (D.D.C.1985) and Anonymous v. FDIC, 617 F.Supp. 509 (D.D.C.1985).

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 ).

Elmore v. Bank of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2026

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.

Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Southern Railway Co.

212 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 1963

, Elgin, Joliet & Eastern Railway Co. v. … the sanction of the Board.

Lattimore v. District of Columbia Municipality

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2026

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (cleaned up). Thus, the pleader must allege enough facts to permit a court “to infer more than the mere possibility of misconduct.” Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. … See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). They also assist the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter.