Case law

IBT/HERE Employee Representatives' Council v. Gate Gourmet Division Americas

377 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2005

Compl. ¶ 13 (describing the Company’s proposals as “deep, across-the-board-cuts in wages and benefits”). … notify the President,” who may create an emergency board to investigate and report on the dispute. *59 Trainmen v.

County Council of Sumter County v. United States

555 F. Supp. 694 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1983

This de jure scheme was unarguably altered by the 1967 and 1975 statutes, and constitutes a change cognizable under Section 5 of the Act. 7 Accord Charlton County (Georgia) Board of Ed. v. … United States v. Board of Commissioners of Sheffield, Ala., supra. From the foregoing we are satisfied, again without reference to principles of collateral estoppel, that the Supreme Court’s precedent of Blanding v.

Bender v. Jordan

679 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 2010

Lucas v. Spellings, 408 F.Supp.2d 8, 10 (D.D.C.2006) (citations omitted); Independence Federal Savings Bank v. Bender, 230 F.R.D. 11, 17 (D.D.C.2005) (citing Gurary v. … Capitol Police Board, 357 F.Supp.2d 19, 23-24 (D.D.C.2004) (“Parties and their counsel may be sanctioned by the Court for violations of Rule 11.”); see also Rafferty v.

Allen v. Yellen

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2023

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). “A confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr. Corp., 71 F.

United Brotherhood of Carpenters and Joiners of America v. Operative Plasters' & Cement Masons' International Association of the United States & Canada, Afl-Cio

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2011

Postal Workers Union v. U.S. Postal Serv., 550 F.3d 27, 32 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (citing United Paperworkers Int'l Union v. … See Carey v. Westinghouse Elec.

Federal Trade Commission v. Whole Foods Market, Inc.

502 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2007

Brown Shoe Co. v. … United States v. Philadelphia Nat’l Bank, 374 U.S. at 362 , 83 S.Ct. 1715 ; see Brown Shoe Co. v.

Ass'n of Retail Travel Agents, Ltd. v. Air Transport Ass'n

623 F. Supp. 893 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 1985

The Court of Appeals affirmed the Board’s decision to terminate antitrust immunity at the end of two years. Republic Airlines v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 756 F.2d 1304 , 1316-17 (8th Cir.1985). … According to the Supreme Court in Board of Trade of the City of Chicago v.

Swisher International, Inc. v. United States Food and Drug Administration

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 9, 2024

Workers Union Loc. 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 551 (1996) (cleaned up). As for the first requirement, a plaintiff “does not have to await the consummation of threatened injury to obtain preventive relief.” … The TCA was Congress’s answer to Brown & Williamson. See Nicopure Labs, LLC v. FDA, 944 F.3d 267, 272 (D.C. Cir. 2019).

Roberts v. Acosta

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 16, 2020

See Resp. at 13 (withdrawing Count V). … Id.; see also Williams v. Brennan, 320 F.

Qtaish v. Malman

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2023

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). As here, “[a] confused and rambling narrative of charges and conclusions . . . does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8.” Cheeks v. Fort Myer Constr.

NATIONAL MINING ASS'N v. Jackson

816 F. Supp. 2d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 6, 2011

Ass’n v. … The federal defendants next point to James V. Hurson Associates, Inc. v.

Jennings v. Connally

347 F. Supp. 409 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 1972

Pay Board Release, PB-39. … See also, Bowles v. Willingham, 321 U.S. 503 , 64 S.Ct. 641 , 88 L.Ed. 892 (1944). 24 .

Scott v. District of Columbia

598 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2009

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). “[A] complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims.” Aktieselskabet AF 21. Nov. 2001 v. … Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . The accuracy of Captain Scott’s time entries is not a matter of public concern.

United States v. United States Gypsum Company

124 F. Supp. 573 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 1954

Co. v. Hocking Valley Ry. … United States v. Swift & Co., 286 U.S. 106, 114 , 52 S.Ct. 460 , 76 L.Ed. 999 . Also United States v.

United States v. Arana

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 2023

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 FE Supp. 3d 295, 304 (DDC. 2022) (CKK). D.

Del Rio v. US Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2010

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977). … See 28 U.S.C. §§ 2241-2243; Hensley v.

Kurtz v. Baker

630 F. Supp. 850 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1986

Defendants argue that no one has the right to address Congress on topics of their personal concern, citing Minnesota State Board for Community Colleges v. … The State Board recognized, however, "that not every instructor agrees with the official faculty view on every policy question.” Id. 104 S.Ct. at 1062. 3 . See Wallace v.

Borum v. Brentwood Village, LLC

218 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2016

Reiner v. California, 612 F. App’x 473 (9th Cir. 2015)). In Reiner, the plaintiff sought review of determinations made in a state-level workers’ compensation appeal board and “state tribunals.” … United Food & Commercial Workers Union 26 Local 751 v. Brown Grp., Inc., 517 U.S. 544, 553 (1996) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert.

American Federation of Government Employees v. Pierce

586 F. Supp. 1559 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 1984

Pickering v. Board of Education, 391 U.S. 563, 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968). … Martin v.

Doe v. McGuire

289 F. Supp. 3d 266 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2018

Gas Co. v. Airco Indus. … Though the METCO Board of Directors is no longer a party to this action, see supra note 1, it was a named defendant at the time of removal.