Case law

McNair v. Rei Co-Op

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 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).

Nurriddin v. Bolden

674 F. Supp. 2d 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 2009

Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 145 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C.Cir.1999)). … Id. at 103 (quoting Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d at 457 ) (emphasis added).

Arthur v. Mudd

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2010

Patricia Browne Arthur originally brought the case, (see Compl. [# 1]), but she has since been replaced as the shareholder derivative plaintiff by the Federal Housing Finance Agency ("FHFA"), the statutorily-authorized … The other cases were originally captioned as Kellmer v. Raines (Civ. No. 07- I 1173), Middleton v. Raines (Civ. No. 07-1221), and Agnes v. Raines (Civ.

Mica SAINT-JEAN, Et Al., Plaintiffs, v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Defendant

74 F. Supp. 3d 274 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2014

For example, the District cites Cunningham v. District of Columbia, which involves a psychiatrist who assisted a parole board in carrying out its duties. See D.C. Mem. at 13; Cunningham v. … See id. at 578 n.6 (“[H]e acted at the direction of the parole board, in aid of that board’s performance of its adjudicatory duties[.]”).

Byrd v. Bacerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 2024

Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016, 1022 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). … In so holding, Chambers expressly overruled the Circuit’s decision in Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 (D.C. Cir. 1999), which interpreted § 2000e-16. Chambers, 35 F.4th at 875 (“Brown’s approach is clearly mistaken.”).

Converse v. Brenner

259 F. Supp. 227 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 1966

Thus, the claimed invention fails to satisfy the test of unobviousness laid down by the Supreme Court, and the Board of Appeals must be affirmed. Graham et al. v. … Marconi Wireless Telegraph Co. of America v.

Senick v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2016

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520-21 (1972). … Agency Action The decision of the PBGC Appeals Board is final agency action that is subject to judicial review under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”). See Lewis v. Pension Benefit Guar. Corp., 40 F.

Flowers v. Plymouth Rock Insurance

District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2024

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).

Simmons v. Rosemond

223 F. Supp. 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 1963

Thus in Home v. … Thus in Sims v.

Moncrief v. Office of Personnel Management

621 F. Supp. 963 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 1985

But in Grey v. … Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972), and Perry v.

Miller v. Biden

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2022

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. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).  This complaint alleges hardly any facts, and otherwise falls short of the minimum pleading standard set forth in Rule 8(a).

Brooks-Miller v. England

357 F. Supp. 2d 197 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 18, 2004

Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C.Cir.1999). As previously noted, the D.C. Circuit has held the plaintiff does not need to “plead law or match facts to every element of a legal theory” in her complaint. … Singletary v. District of Columbia, 351 F.3d 519, 524 (D.C.Cir.2003); Brown, 199 F.3d at 452 .

Retail Clerks Union, Local 648 v. Retail Clerks International Ass'n

299 F. Supp. 1012 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 11, 1969

Thus, as was said in Wirtz v. … Given the wording of § 6(1) and § 33(E) it seems to the Court that the International Executive Board’s interpretation of the Union’s Constitution is reasonable and must be accepted under the doctrine of English v.

Davis v. Dalton

929 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 1996

Harding v. Gray, 9 F.3d 150, 154 (D.C.Cir.1993). … Laningham v. U.S. Navy, 813 F.2d 1236, 1241 (D.C.Cir.1987) (per curiam) (citing Anderson, supra).

Penny v. U.S. Department of Justice

653 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2009

See Buggs v. … Bureau v. U.S.

Murphy v. Bastiampillai

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 18, 2026

Cir. 2010) (courts “may raise the res judicata preclusion defense sua sponte”) (citing Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1285–86 (D.C. Cir. 2008)) (other citation omitted). … See Murphy v. Bastiampillai, No. 24-cv-01808 (D.

Burford v. Yellen

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2019

Ctr. v. … .”); see also Czelaski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360, 366 (D.C. Cir. 2007). Here, to the contrary, Ms. Burford and her fellow officers all support the Board’s proffered rationale.

Brewer v. District of Columbia

891 F. Supp. 2d 126 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2012

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The motion does not test a plaintiff’s ultimate likelihood of success on the merits, but rather, whether a plaintiff has properly stated a claim. Scheuer v. … Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 (1984); Lucas-Bolden v. Potter, 2005 WL 3273725, at *3 (D.D.C. Sept. 29, 2005).

Adena Regional Medical Center v. Leavitt

524 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2007

Procedural History The Hospitals timely filed appeals of the fiscal intermediary’s determination to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (the “Board”). See 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a). … See Cabell Huntington Hosp., Inc. v. Shalala, 101 F.3d 984 , 988 (4th Cir.1996); Legacy .Emanuel Hosp. and Health Ctr. v. Shalala, 97 F.3d 1261, 1266 (9th Cir.1996); Deaconess Health Servs. Corp. v.

Terrell v. Bailey

District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2024

Atherton v. D.C. Off. of Mayor, 567 F.3d 672, 682 (D.C. Cir. 2009). … at 3 (citing Brown v. WMATA, 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016)). A separate order accompanies this memorandum opinion.