Case law

Sun Oil Co. v. Udall

230 F. Supp. 381 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1964

Further, the Secretary “may provide that the Board may take such action on petitions as it deems appropriate and that the decision by the Appeals Board shall be final.” … Eustace v. Day, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 242 , 314 F.2d 247 (1962). The decision of the Appeals Board in the Sun Oil petition is based on three points.

Smith v. Obama

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 2010

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  !

Federal Firefighters Ass'n, Local 1 v. United States

723 F. Supp. 825 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 1989

Congress and exercises a veto power over actions of the Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority’s (“MWAA’s”) Board of Directors. … Defendants point out, however, that although the Code was presented to the Board of Review, it took no action so that plaintiffs suffered no injury and have no standing to challenge the composition of the Board.

Tucson Medical Center v. Sullivan

748 F. Supp. 28 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 16, 1990

See, e.g., Comm’rs Court of Medina County v. United States, 683 F.2d 435, 440 (D.C.Cir.1982) (Voting Rights Act); Chicano Police Officer’s Ass’n v. … the Board ... is received.

Adair v. England

209 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2002

Adair v. England, 183 F.Supp.2d 31 (D.D.C.2002). … In addition, they argue, for a chaplain to act lawfully on a promotion board, he must act as a faith-group representative. Pis.’ Mot. at 4.

Malone v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2010

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (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) .. / fl ,/  Plaintiff, a District of Columbia resident, sues former President George H. W.

American Towers, Inc. v. Williams

146 F. Supp. 2d 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2001

See Steffan v. Perry, 41 F.3d at 684 . … See Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333 , 96 S.Ct. 893 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); UDC Chairs v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, 56 F.3d 1469, 1472 (D.C.Cir.1995).

J.G.G. v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 2026

See A.A.R.P. v. Trump, 605 U.S. 91, 94–95 (2025). … (citing Reno v. Flores, 507 U.S. 292, 306 (1993)).

OSEKRE v. Gage

698 F. Supp. 2d 209 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2010

The CMPA created the Public Employee Relations Board (“PERB”) “with a mandate to 'issue rules and regulations establishing a labor-management relations program to implement the policy set forth in [the CMPA],’ ” Hawkins v … McManus v.

Payne v. Locke

766 F. Supp. 2d 245 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2011

See, e.g., Augustus v. Locke, 699 F.Supp.2d 65, 71-72 (D.D.C.2010); Abdelkarim v. Tomlinson, 605 F.Supp.2d 116, 120 (D.D.C.2009); Brown v. Tomlinson, 462 F.Supp.2d 16, 19-20 (D.D.C.2006). … Laudadio v.

Hudson v. Smart

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 18, 2009

Lott Hudson, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). In addition, the complaint must allege facts sufficient to permit the court to determine whether it has jurisdiction of the case.

Washington v. District of Columbia Housing Authority

170 F. Supp. 3d 234 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2016

Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C.Cir.1997) (citing Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C.Cir.1985)). The defen- dant bears the burden of producing evi- dence demonstrating non-exhaustion. Id. … Johnson v.

Ahmed v. Gable

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2023

See Watson v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., 249 F. Supp. 3d 462, 464 (D.D.C. 2017); Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015). … [his] boarding pass is stamped with an ‘SSSS’ designation, which indicates that he is a ‘known or suspected terrorist.’”); Fikre v.

Wilson v. United States of America

86 F. Supp. 3d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2015

See Wilson v. Terrell, 283 F. … Kleinman v. Dep’t of Energy, 956 F.2d 335, 337-38 (D.C. Cir. 1992) (quoting Rogers v. U.S. Dep’t of Labor, 607 F. Supp. 697, 699 (N.D. Cal. 1985)); Levant v. Roche, 384 F.

Jeong Seon Han v. Lynch

223 F. Supp. 3d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2016

Lynn v. … DATE: December 12, 2016 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Woodhouse v. Meta Platforms Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 2023

Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989)). … (quoting Brown v. Dist. Unemployment Comp. Bd., 411 F. Supp. 1001, 1001–02 (D.D.C. 1975) (noting that “a district court has the power to dismiss a case sua sponte if it is frivolous”)).

Media Matters for America v. Federal Trade Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 22, 2025

M.M.V. v. Barr, 459 F. Supp. 3d 1, 4 (D.D.C. 2020) (citing Cuomo v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 772 F.2d 972, 978 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). … In Mahoney v.

Njang v. Whitestone Group, Inc.

187 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 18, 2016

The Board determined that it lacked the authority to review the clearance decision—a conclusion with which the Supreme Court ultimately agreed. … DATE: May 18, 2016 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Alberts v. Tuft (In Re Greater Southeast Community Hospital Corp. I)

353 B.R. 324 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2006

v. … duty of loyalty by a board member.

Kennedy v. New Jersey Court System

District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 2025

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007); Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiffs’ complaint falls far short of the Rule 8 pleading standard. … See, e.g., Hagans v.