Case law

American Servicemen's Union v. Mitchell

54 F.R.D. 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 1972

Subversive Activities Control Board, 382 U.S. 70 , 86 S.Ct. 194 , 15 L.Ed.2d 165 (1965) ; DuBois Clubs of America v. Clark, 389 U.S. 309 , 88 S.Ct. 450 , 19 L.Ed.2d 546 (1967) ; and Boorda v. … Subversive Activities Control Board, 137 U.S. App.D.C. 207, 421 F.2d 1142 (1969). .

Larsen v. United States Navy

887 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2012

“As to condition two,” the court held that “the Navy’s continued use of the CARE Board is irrelevant because the Board no longer applies any type of religious quota system.” Id. … United States v. Susi, 674 F.3d 278, 283 (4th Cir. 2012) (quoting United States v. Bell, 5 F.3d 64, 66 (4th Cir. 1993)).

Williams-Jones v. Peters

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2009

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. C.

Adeyinka v. Norton of Life Lock

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2024

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.

Garland v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2026

See Shuler v. United States, 531 F.3d 930, 932 (D.C. Cir. 2008). … Cir. 2024) (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015)).

Petrozzi v. Bowser

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 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).

Stewart v. Mabus

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2016

Stewart petitioned the Board to reverse these amendments, and the Board denied Stewart's request. Stewart then appealed the Board's decision to this Court. … No. 32] before the Board when it reached its decision, 5 U.S.C. § 706. IMS, P.C. v. Alvarez, 129 F.3d 618, 623 (D.C.

Skelly Oil Co. v. Udall

288 F. Supp. 109 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1968

V. … Hamlin Testing Laboratories, Inc. v. United States Atomic Energy Commission, 6 Cir., 357 F.2d 632 .

Abdulla v. University of Arkansas at Little Rock

930 F. Supp. 2d 138 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 2013

Moor v. Alameda County, 411 U.S. 693, 717 (citing Postal Tel. Cable Co. v. Alabama, 155 U.S. 482 (1894)); see also Long v. District of Columbia, 820 F.2d 409, 412-13 (D.C. … See Greenwood v. Ross, 778 F.2d 448, 449 n.1 (8th Cir. 1985) (“Arkansas state law designates the Board of Trustees of the University of Arkansas as the entity capable of being sued.”). Since Mr.

Odemns v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2015

See Hu v. U.S. Dep ’t o f Def., 2013 WL 6801189, at *1; M oore v. Bush, 535 F. Supp. 2d at 48; Bestor v. … Date: May 6, 2015 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Merrill v. FEDERAL OPEN MARKET COMMITTEE, ETC.

413 F. Supp. 494 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 1976

In NLRB v. … In EPA v.

Matthews v. Central Collections Unit Office of Fnance and Treasury

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 13, 2026

Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (cleaned up). … See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Fields v. District of Columbia

155 F. Supp. 3d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 12, 2016

Plaintiff’s suit seeks a declaratory judgment and injunctive relief relating to the failure of the Department of Health Board of Psychology (the “Board”) to respond to her motion to dismiss a complaint filed against her … Specifically, Plaintiff alleges that the Board’s failure to respond to her motion to dismiss the complaint against her, charge her with “any violations of the Board’s rules and/or regulations” or schedule a disciplinary

St. Marys Regional Medical Center v. Xavier Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 2024

V. … The “inextricably intertwined” motif on which the Board and the Secretary both rely originates with Texas Alliance for Home Care Services v. Sebelius, 811 F.

Rogers v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

214 F. Supp. 3d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 6, 2016

See DelCostello v. … Board Decision at 8-9.

Urban Sustainability Directors Network v. United States Department of Agriculture

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2025

Mot. for PI, Decl. of Jamal Brown, CFO and COO of USDN (“Brown Decl.”) ¶ 5, ECF No. 14-2. … See Brown Decl., Ex.

Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen

314 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 1970

The background leading to the creation of the Arbitration Board which issued Award 282 was thoroughly detailed in Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Akron & B.B. R. … Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v.

Lucas v. District of Columbia

133 F. Supp. 3d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2015

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007); accord Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 679 (2009). … Robinson v.

University of Texas M.D. Anderson Cancer Center v. Sebelius

706 F. Supp. 2d 97 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 2010

Hosp. v. … In addition, the Board provided an explanation for its decision that was reasonably logical and detailed. A.R. at 10-11. See, e.g., JIGC Nursing Home Co. v.

Harrison v. Butz

375 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 1973

The above decision of the Board was final and plaintiff was so informed. … In Allison v. United States, 451 F.2d 1035 , 196 Ct.Cl. 263 (1971) and Chambers v.