Case law

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.

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).

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.

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 ).

Elkins v. District of Columbia

527 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2007

Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs and the Board of Appeals and Review. See D.C.Code § 2-1831.03(a) & (b) (defining OAH jurisdiction). 2 . This lawsuit, captioned Stevens v. … . § 122.1.2 provided for review of stop work order by two District officials and then immediate appeal to the Board of Appeals and Review).

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.

Smoking Everywhere, Inc. v. U.S. Food and Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 2010

Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 529 U.S. at 134-37. … Brown & Williamson Tobacco, 529 U.S. at 144.

Resolute Forest Products, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Agriculture

130 F. Supp. 3d 81 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2015

See Scott v. … Freeman v.

Peavey v. United States of America

128 F. Supp. 3d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2015

Applications for reconsideration filed more than six years after an adverse board decision, will not reset or toll the statute of limitations. Lewis v. Sec’y of the Navy, 892 F.Supp.2d 1, 7 (D.D.C. 2012); Cage v. … The Board decision may also be arbitrary and capricious when it is “based on wholly erroneous facts.” Wielkoszewski v. Harvey, 398 F. Supp. 2d 102, 114 (D.D.C. 2005).

Fletcher v. United States Parole Commission

550 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2008

Board regulation would be excluded. 481 F.Supp.2d at 164-65 . … Board regulations. See Am.

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.

Wentworth v. Laird

348 F. Supp. 1153 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 1972

Heeding the comment of our Court of Appeals in Adams v. Laird, 136 U.S. … As we said in Gayer v. Laird, 332 F.Supp. 169, 171 (D.D.C. 1971) and Ulrich v.

Brian Ruud International v. United States

733 F. Supp. 396 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 1989

And decisions by corporations whose Boards of Directors are dominated by one person to this degree are subject to more careful scrutiny than are others. Basic Unit Ministry v. … Defendant cites Basic Unit Ministry v.

Treppel Ex Rel. Norfolk Southern Corp. v. Reason

793 F. Supp. 2d 429 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2011

See James v. Verizon Servs. … See Montgomery v.

Palmer v. Napolitano

867 F. Supp. 2d 120 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 2012

Browning-Ferris Indus. of Pa., Inc., 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982,] is better suited than Spirides to resolve ‘joint employment’ discrimination cases . . . .” Harris v. Atty. General of U.S., 657 F. … Browning-Ferris addresses situations where the plaintiff may be an employee of two organizations at once. Id. at 1122-23.

Gibraltar Sayings v. Ryan

772 F. Supp. 1290 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 1991

Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 826 F.2d 1400 (5th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 485 U.S. 959 , 108 S.Ct. 1221 , 99 L.Ed.2d 422 (1988); Guaranty S & L Ass’n v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 794 F.2d 1339 (8th Cir.1986). … Federal Home Loan Bank Board, 721 F.Supp. 1344 (D.D.C.1989) and Lincoln Savings & Loan Association v. Wall, 743 F.Supp. 901 (D.D.C.1990).

Mail Order Ass'n of America v. United States Postal Service

690 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 1988

Association of American Publishers, Inc. v. Governors of the United States Postal Service, 485 F.2d 768, 772 (D.C.Cir.1973). … over actions of the Governors and not those of the Board.

Steward v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 25, 2016

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, 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). This complaint does not set forth a statement of a cognizable claim showing plaintiff’s entitlement to relief.

Davis v. United States

569 F. Supp. 2d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2008

Ma charia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 .

Shurtleff v. City of Bos.

337 F. Supp. 3d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2018

In considering the design, the Board sought public comments. Id. at 2245 . … Brown , 447 U.S. 455 , 100 S.Ct. 2286 , 65 L.Ed.2d 263 (1980), in which the plaintiffs prevailed on claims of speech-related Equal Protection violations.