Case law

Otis & Co. v. National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc.

84 F. Supp. 395 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 1949

thereby, and that application to the Board of Governors for review shall operate as a stay of any such disciplinary action until a decision is rendered by the Board of Governors upon such review. 5 Application for review … Otis & Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al., D.C.Cir., 176 F.2d 34 , It seems obvious from the record that this is intended to be February 9, 1948. Section 5.

Martin v. Stone

759 F. Supp. 19 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 1991

Hayes v. Secretary of Defense, 515 F.2d 668 (D.C.Cir.1975). … In addition, the plaintiff asserts that resort to the Board should not be required in this case since the Board would simply be revisiting the issues already considered by the Secretary.

Carson v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel

514 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2007

BROida, A Guide To Merit Systems Protection Board Law & PRACTICE, CL 13 § IV.B.1 (2004). … Williams v.

Lake v. Cameron

267 F. Supp. 155 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 17, 1967

The Circuit Court, in Lake v. … V 1966), which became effective January 1, 1966. The Circuit Court granted a rehearing en banc, and in a five to four opinion, Lake v.

Saiyed v. Council on American-Islamic Relations Action Network, Inc.

78 F. Supp. 3d 465 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2015

If the CAIR-VA board would make a decision regarding personnel, including hiring and firing decisions and salary, the board would be presented with the issue and then vote on it. Mr. … Iqbal ran the operations of CAIR-VA as its acting executive director, he did so pursuant to the supervision of CAIR-VA’s volunteer board [and] [h]e was bound to the decisions made by the CAIR-VA volunteer board.”

Chappell-Johnson v. Bair

636 F. Supp. 2d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 2009

Chappell-Johnson v. Powell, 440 F.3d 484, 488 (D.C.Cir.2006) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C.Cir.1999)). … Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 902 (D.C.Cir.2006) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C.Cir.1999)). They also ignore Velikonja v.

United Airlines, Inc. v. McKinnon

580 F. Supp. 189 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 1983

“The Board’s interpretation of the statute and its own regulations is entitled to deference.” CAB v. United Airlines, Inc., 542 F.2d 394, 402 (D.C.Cir.1976). … Association of American Railroads v. United States, 371 F.Supp. 114, 116-17 (D.D.C.1974).

Richardson v. Hampton

373 F. Supp. 833 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 1974

The decision of the Board is final with respect to matters before the Board at that time and there is no further right of appellate review of any issue therein except upon direction of the Civil Service Commissioners to reopen … The Board concurs in the finding of the Director of the Office of Equal Opportunity, that Mr.

Moreno-Baltierra v. United States Health & Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 2, 2013

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2()09); Ciralsky 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 purports to sue the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services and the States of Califomia and Kentucky, or agencies within those states.

Maeztu v. Brownell

132 F. Supp. 751 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 1955

Matranga v. … Supp. 84 , and also by the strong expressions of Judge Youngdahl of our Court in Alexiou v. McGrath, 101 F.

Goodrich v. Teets

510 F. Supp. 2d 130 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2007

See Cone v. Caldera, 223 F.3d 789, 793 (D.C.Cir.2000) (applying an “unusually deferential application” of the APA standard to a decision of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records); Kreis v. … See Herbert v.

Baystate Medical Center v. Leavitt

587 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 7, 2008

The same, of course, could be said for discovery, particularly in light of CMS’s longstanding position that the Board does not have the authority to compel CMS to comply with Board orders. … J. at 15, 20 n.6 (noting that CMS had refused to comply with Board subpoenas for SSI eligibility records). 7 . See, e.g., Amer. Iron & Steel Inst. v.

United States v. Gonzalez

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 2025

See Brown v. Amtrak Corp., No. 03-7003, 2003 WL 22433755, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 27, 2023) (“A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final judgment on the merits which bars further litigation between the same parties.” … Supp. 3d 132, 145 (D.D.C. 2015) (noting that dismissal with prejudice “reflect[s] on the merits 5 of the underlying action” (quoting Brown v.

Lucas v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 2023

Office of Personnel) on March 7, 2007; to the District of Columbia Retirement Board on March 26, 2010; to the Police and Firefighters Retirement and Relief Board on May 13, 2010; and to the MPD on May 13, 2010.” Pl. … Brown v. Sec’y of Army, 918 F.2d 214, 216 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (quoting 5 U.S.C. § 5596(b)(1)). The Back Pay Act is “an auxiliary measure that operates only at the relief stage.” Brown, 918 F.2d at 217.

Taylor v. People of the Venue of the Foreign United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2026

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678–79 (2009); Ciralsky 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). When a pleading “contains an untidy assortment of claims that are neither plainly nor concisely stated,” it does not fulfill the requirements of Rule 8.

Depu v. Oath Holdings, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2021

The guidelines required (1) that at least one Yahoo employee serve on the Fund’s board of directors, (2) that the board would not have a quorum for meetings unless Yahoo’s designated board member was present, and (3) that … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Baker, Watts & Co. v. Saxon

261 F. Supp. 247 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 1966

. *249 Commercial State Bank of Roseville v. Gidney, D.C., 174 F.Supp. 770 , affirmed 108 U.S.App.D.C. 37 , 278 F.2d 871 ; National Bank of Detroit v. Wayne Oakland Bank, 252 F.2d 537 (6th C.). … On May 8, 1964, the Board of Governors reiterated its views on the subject, 12 C.F.R. § 208.109 as follows: “ * * *, the Board understands that phrase [i.e. general obligations] to include only obligations that are supported

James v. Federal Election Commission

914 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2012

Id. at *4 (citing Buckley v. Valeo, 424 U.S. 1, 22, 28 (1976)). … Id. at *6 (citing, inter alia, Randall v.

Doherty v. Turner Broadcasting System, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 1, 2021

Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 150 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (cleaned up). … See, e.g., Brown v. 1301 K St. Ltd.

New Lifecare Hospitals of North Carolina LLC v. Cochran

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2019

See 42 U.S.C. 1395oo(f) (“A decision of the Board shall be final unless the Secretary . . . reverses, affirms, or modifies the Board’s decision.”) (emphasis added); cf. Howard Young Med. Ctr. Inc. v. … Partners, L.P. v. Sebelius, 932 F.