Case law

Adeyinka v. Project Home

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 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.

Harpman v. Watson

181 F. Supp. 919 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 1959

. § 145 is specific in saying that we shall adjudge the plaintiff’s right to a‘ patent for his invention “as specified in any of his claims involved in the decision of the Board of Appeals.” … Whereas Wittmann must fold his flap so that the “V” formed by the first two flap sections when folded points outwardly from the envelope, the fact appears to be that plaintiff’s invention can be practiced by folding the flap

American Trucking Associations, Inc. v. United States

242 F. Supp. 597 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 10, 1965

Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 254 U.S. 394, 410 , 41 S.Ct. 169 , 65 L.Ed. 322 (1921); Railroad Commission of State of California v. … Co. v. State of Oklahoma, 271 U.S. 303, 307 , 46 S.Ct. 517 , 70 L.Ed. 957 (1926); Lehigh Valley R. Co. v. Board of Public Utility Commissioners, 278 U.S. 24, 35 , 49 S.Ct. 69 , 73 L.Ed. 161 (1928).

Jones v. District of Columbia

212 F. Supp. 438 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 20, 1962

Zahn v. Board of Public Works, 274 U.S. 325 , 47 S.Ct. 594 , 71 L.Ed. 1074 (1927); Marblehead Land Co. v. City of Los Angeles, 47 F.2d 528, 532 (9th Cir., 1931); Sinclair Refining Co. v. … See Taylor v.

Hunt v. Judge

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 2020

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). The complaint alludes to the United States and leaders of foreign countries including Mexico, Venezuela, China, and Russia.

Young v. United States Environmental Protection Agency

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2022

Before the reconstitution of both advisory committees, Young had served on the Board but not the Committee. Cox had served on both the Committee and the Board. See id. … v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 422 F. Supp. 3d 81, 88 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Gulf Oil Corp. v. Dep’t of Energy, 514 F. Supp. 1019, 1026 (D.D.C. 1981)).

Shaw v. Negasi

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2022

Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007). … See, e.g., Brown v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. Feb. 5, 2016) (dismissing a complaint sua sponte for failing to comply with FRCP 8(a)); Hamrick v.

Perry Capital LLC v. Lew

70 F. Supp. 3d 208 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2014

The logic of these decisions would appear to extend to dividends that are issued at the “sole discretion” of a GSE board—or, in this case, the regulatory entity that has succeeded to all the rights of the board. … Koontz v. St. Johns River Water Mgmt. Dist., 133 S. Ct. 2586, 2600 (2013) (citing Brown v. Legal Found. of Wash., 538 U.S. 216, 235 (2003)).

Marshall v. Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 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).

Cristwell v. Veneman

224 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 2002

(citing Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 832-33 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Bayer v. United States Dept. of the Treasury, 956 F.2d 330, 332 (D.C.Cir.1992)). … Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984).

Baloun v. Kerry

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2017

Date: March 30, 2017 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge … See Rabe v.

Abdullah v. Washington

437 F. Supp. 2d 137 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2006

Brown, Deputy Director for Operations at the D.C. Jail, and Judy Lyons, Deputy Warden for Support Services at the D.C. … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). The complaint need only set forth a short and plain statement of the claim, giving the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests.

Simpson v. Socialist People's Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

362 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2005

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). The complaint need only set forth a short and plain statement of the claim, giving the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which it rests. … Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Development v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 .

P. F. Z. Properties, Inc. v. Train

393 F. Supp. 1370 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 1975

After lengthy hearings in which EPA was a participant, the Planning Board of the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico (Planning Board) approved on July 20, 1974, upon recommendation of the Environment Quality Board of Puerto Rico … Properties, Inc., have a permit from the V. S.

Allen v. Allen

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2025

Jackson v. United States, No. 15-cv-976, 2015 WL 3917397, at *1 (D.D.C. June 18, 2015) (quoting Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 484 (1973)). … See Brown v.

Ceaser v. Walton

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 2, 2026

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). As here, a confused narrative of charges and conclusions does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8, Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F. … Sindram v. Suda, 986 F.2d 1459, 1460 (D.C. Cir. 1993); see also Mireles v.

Abdelaal v. Wsp Global Inc

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2024

Cir. 1979); NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Pa., Inc., 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982)). … Supp. 2d 67, 89 (D.D.C. 2013); Brown v. Children’s Nat’l Med. Ctr., 773 F. Supp. 2d 125, 135 (D.D.C. 2011). Mr.

Johnson v. D.C. Detention Center

532 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2008

See Preiser v. … See Thompson v.

Turner v. Spencer

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2018

Decisions of a military corrections board are reviewed under an “unusually deferential application” of this standard. Kries v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1514 (D.C. Cir. 1989). … Roberts v. Harvey, 441 F. Supp. 2d 111, 118 (D.D.C. 2006) (quoting Frizelle v. Slater, 111 F.3d 172, 177 (D.C. Cir. 1997)). Typically, only the “‘most egregious’ Board decisions will fail to satisfy” the standard.

United States v. Waters

73 F. Supp. 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 1947

This sufficiently established that defendant had the pistol "about his person" within the meaning of the statute, as decided by the United States Court of Appeals in Brown v. … See People v. Grass, 79 Misc. 457 , 141 N.Y.S. 204 ; People v. Ross, 60 Cal.App. 163 , 212 P. 627 .