Case law

Watson v. United States Parole Commission

869 F. Supp. 2d 145 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 28, 2012

Parole Board that operated with nearly complete discretion,” Wilson v. Fulwood, 772 F. Supp. 2d 246, 252 (D.D.C. 2011) (citing Austin, 606 F. … Supp. 2d at 8), subject only to regulations promulgated by the Parole Board in 1972, see id. Given the “totally unfettered” discretion under which the Parole Board operated in those days, see Sellmon v. Reilly, 561 F.

Montgomery v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 2024

Cir. 2019) (quoting Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. … For example, in Brown v.

Associated Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2017

R; Brown Decl. Ex. J). … As the court in Mayer Brown LLP v.

Bayshore Community Hospital v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 6, 2018

Hosp. v. Hargan, 285 F. … Hosp. v. Hargan, 285 F.

Fraternal Order of Police Library of Congress Labor Committee v. Library of Congress

639 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2009

Billington in his official capacity as Librarian of Congress (“Librarian”), the United States Capitol Police (“USCP”), and the United States Capitol Police Board (“Board”). … See WMATC v. Holiday Tours, 559 F.2d 841, 843 (D.C.Cir.1977).

Mid-Century, Limited v. United Cigar-Whelan St. Corp.

109 F. Supp. 433 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 1953

Thus, in Jacobs v. J. C. … See Weltman’s Inc. v. Friedman, D.C., 102 F.Supp. 485, 487 ; Restatement of the Law of Contracts, secs. 12, 75, 90; Williston on Contracts, secs. 13, 102.

Lee v. Seed Public Charter School of Washington, Dc

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 18, 2019

See Brown v. DC, No. 16-947-EGS, 2019 WL 4345710, at *5 (D.D.C. Sep. 12, 2019) (applying the DCHRA’s one-year limitations period to the Plaintiff’s Rehabilitation Act claim). … Monroe County Board of Education, 526 U.S. 629 (1999).

National Treasury Employees Union v. Chertoff

385 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2005

Beard v. Gen. Servs. … See 5 U.S.C. § 7701 (a) (“Appeals shall be processed in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Board.”); 5 U.S.C. § 7701 (k) (“The Board may prescribe regulations to carry out the purpose of this section.”)

Federal Trade Commission v. Sysco Corporation

83 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2015

Steel Corp. v. United States, 730 F.2d 1465, 1468 n.3 (Fed. … See Brown Bag Software v. Symantec Corp., 960 F.2d 1465, 1470 (9th Cir. 1992); Carpenter Tech. Corp. v. Armco, Inc., 132 F.R.D. 24, 27 (E.D. Pa. 1990). The court concludes that Mr.

Karrick v. Cantrill

290 F. 321 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 1923

On a former appeal (Karrick et al. v. Cantrill et al., 51 App. D. C. 176, 277 Fed. 578 ) the decision of the commission was reversed, with 'costs, and the Lause remanded for-a rehearing.. … The commission is neither a board of appraisers, an arbitration board, nor,.as in Omaha v. Omaha Water Co., 218 U. S. 180 , 30 Sup. Ct. 615, 54 L. Ed. 991 , 48 L. R. A. (N.

Gundersen Lutheran Medical Center, Inc. v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2009

the Board's decision.”) … V.

District Hospital Partners, L.P. v. Sebelius

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 2011

If the Board determines that it lacks the authority to decide the question, it will certify the question for “expedited judicial review.” See id.; see also Heartland Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. Leavitt, 415 F.3d 24, 27 (D.C. … . § 405.1842(a)(1) (provider may seek review of “a legal question relevant to a specific matter at issue in a Board appeal” (emphasis added)); see also Shalala v. Ill.

Sentara Hampton General Hospital v. Sullivan

799 F. Supp. 128 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 1991

Mary of Nazareth Hospital Center v. … Hospital v. Bowen, 821 F.2d 750 , 752 (D.C.Cir.1987), aff'd, Bowen v.

Ramallo v. Reno

918 F. Supp. 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 1996

On April 8,1994, the plaintiff filed a petition for review of the Board’s decision with the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. See Cooke v. … See Yamaha Corp. of America v.

Lewis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

40 F. Supp. 3d 147 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 8, 2014

Plan participants may challenge PBGC’s determinations before the Appeals Board. See 29 C.F.R. §§ 4003.21, 4003.51. … See PBGC v. LTV Corp., 496 U.S. 633, 636 (1990); Vanderkam, 943 F. Supp. 2d at 137 (citing Davis v. PBGC, 864 F. Supp. 2d 148, 155 (D.D.C. 2012); United Steel v. PBGC, 839 F.

Nichols v. Holder

828 F. Supp. 2d 250 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 2011

Smith v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (per curiam). … Cir. 2004) (quoting Salahuddin, 861 F.2d at 42 (quoting 5 WRIGHT & MILLER § 1281, at 365)); Brown v.

Owens v. District of Columbia

631 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2009

In August, plaintiff filed a petition seeking review of that dismissal by the Board of the OEA (“the Board”). (Id. ¶ 76.) … June 3, 1996) (concluding that plaintiffs efforts to administratively exhaust claims through Merits Systems Protective Board tolled statute of limitations for Bivens claims under D.C. law); Pettaway v.

Viles v. Claytor

481 F. Supp. 465 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 1979

United States v. Heffner, 420 F.2d 809, 811 (4th Cir. 1969). … See also Yellin v. United States, 374 U.S. 109 , 83 S.Ct. 1828 , 10 L.Ed.2d 778 (1963); Service v. *469 Dulles, 354 U.S. 363 , 77 S.Ct. 1152 , 1 L.Ed.2d 1403 (1959); United States ex rel. Accardi v.

Oakland Physicians Medical Center v. Price

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2018

A “final decision” of the Board is a jurisdictional prerequisite. See Ass’n of Am. Med. Colls. v. Califano, 569 F.2d 101, 108 (D.C. … The Secretary took no action on the Board’s denial of Plaintiff’s extension request and therefore the Board’s decision became “final” 60 days after the Board made the decision. See U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs v.

Everett v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2015

.: 14-1694 (RC) : v. … See Order, ECF No. 40 (dismissing the Complaint as to Defendants the Durham County Board of Elections, the County of Durham, and Michael D.