Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
10,000+ results
2.14s
District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 2024
See id. § 3142(e)(3)(A); United States v. Brown, 538 F. Supp. 3d 154, 165 (D.D.C. 2021) (RCL). … Brown, 538 F. Supp. 3d at 165–66.
Cited 0 timesPublishedEarle v. Washington Lawyers Commitee
District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 2016
See Haz'nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants, however, must comply with the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987). … Brown v. Calz`fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).
Cited 0 timesPublishedCiriello v. Executive Office of the President
District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2015
See Haines V. Kerner, 404 US. 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).
Cited 0 timesPublishedNasa Federal Credit Union v. W. Jenkins Plumbing & Heating Company
District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2009
Harvey, citing Filla v. … Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 26 F. Supp. 2d 74, 76-77 (D.D.C. 1998) (quoting B., Inc. v. Miller Brewing Co., 663 F.2d 545, 549 (5th Cir. 1981)).
Cited 0 timesPublished242 F. Supp. 3d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2017
, followed by an appeal to the board en banc or directly to a federal appellate court. … This does not mean that the ALJ (or the Board) is bound by the Director’s determination.
Cited 10 timesPublishedCienfuegos v. Office of the Architect of the Capitol
34 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2014
In Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Board, 575 F.3d 699 (D.C. Cir. 2009), an employment-discrimination case brought by U.S. Capitol Police officers, the D.C. … See Blackmon-Malloy v. U.S. Capitol Police Board, No. 01-2221 (D.D.C.) (Minute Order, June 23, 2010).
Cited 6 timesPublished898 F. Supp. 2d 121 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2012
Co. v. White, 548 U.S. 53, 57 (2006). Reassignment of duties may be an adverse action when the “plaintiff has suffered [an] objectively tangible harm,” Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C. … Geleta v. Gray, 645 F.3d 408, 411 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Pardo-Kronemann v. Donovan, 601 F.3d 599, 607 (D.C. Cir. 2010)).
Cited 10 timesPublished878 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2012
Def Fund, Inc. v. Castle, 657 F.2d 275,283 (D.C. … Supp. 2d 179, 186 (D.D.C. 2008), it may not "serve as a super correction board that reweighs the evidence", nor may it substitute its own judgment for that of the agency. Schaefer v. Geren, 607 F.
Cited 1 timesPublishedDavis v. Dc Department of Corrections
District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2009
Nos. 15, 30] and DOC, Brown and Miller move collectively to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) or for summary judgment pursuant to Rule 56 [Dkt. No. 17]. … See Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1948; Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 258 (D.C. Cir. 1993); Meyer v. Reno, 911 F. Supp. 11, 15 (D.D.C. 1996) (citing cases); Price v. Kelly, 847 F.
Cited 0 timesPublishedBaumann v. District of Columbia
District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 2011
See Duvall v. … Elkins v. District of Columbia, 636 F. Supp. 2d 29, 33 (D.D.C. 2009) (citing Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1285 (D.C. Cir. 2008)).
Cited 0 timesPublishedFritch v. U.S. Department of State
District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2018
The Foreign Service Grievance Board (“FSGB” or “Board”) affirmed the denial of Plaintiff’s first grievance, and this court upheld that decision. See generally Fritch v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 220 F. … The Board, however, declined to apply that equitable doctrine. See Admin. R., ECF No. 44, at 112–13. In doing so, the Board relied on the test set out in New Hampshire v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedWagner v. United States Solicitor General
District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 19, 2023
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). 1 As drafted, plaintiff’s complaint fails to meet the minimal pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a).
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2023
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA GARY V. … Brown v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2024
See id. § 3142(e)(3)(A); United States v. Brown, 538 F. Supp. 3d 154, 165 (D.D.C. 2021) (RCL). … See Brown, 538 F. Supp. 3d at 168–69. Given the evidence to date, this factor weighs in favor of detention. See United States v. Brockhoff, 590 F.
Cited 0 timesPublished174 F. Supp. 3d 210 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016
), 4-2 (Board of Immigration Appeals decision). … Cameron v. Thornburgh, 983 F.2d 253, 256 (D.C.Cir.1993).
Cited 8 timesPublishedDistrict Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2024
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).
Cited 0 timesPublished666 F. Supp. 2d 123 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2009
Rodearmel relies on Board of Education v. Allen, 392 U.S. 236 , 88 S.Ct. 1923 , 20 L.Ed.2d 1060 (1968), and Clarke v. … There can be no doubt that [the school board members] thus have a “personal stake in the outcome” of this litigation. Id. at 241 n. 5, 88 S.Ct. 1923 (quoting Baker v.
Cited 5 timesPublishedMetLife, Inc. v. Financial Stability Oversight Council
177 F. Supp. 3d 219 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2016
The Board approved this acquisition by letter dated October 29, 2010. See JA 2566-70. … The Board has exclusive authority to interpret the BHCA. See 12 U.S.C. § 1844 (b); Whitney Nat’l Bank v. Bank of New Orleans & Trust Co., 379 U.S. 411, 419-21 , 85 S.Ct. 551 , 13 L.Ed.2d 386 (1965).
Cited 3 timesPublished68 F. Supp. 3d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2014
Gullaksen sought to appeal to a panel of arbitrators known as the System Board of Adjustment (“System Board”). Id. ¶ 23. He requested that ALPA submit his appeal, but ALPA declined. Id. ¶¶ 23-24, 41. … .”); Linke v.
Cited 5 timesPublishedDistrict Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2009
E.g., Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C. Cir. 1999). … Brown, 199 F.3d at 458.
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna