Case law

Collier v. Kendall

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2023

Clarke v. United States, 915 F.2d 699, 704 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (en banc). Neither party has suggested that Collier will be subject to another Board of Inquiry. … There is no evidence that Collier will again face a Board of Inquiry, and her wait is over. See, e.g., Seeger v. DOD, 306 F.

Maryland Department of Human Resources v. Sullivan

738 F. Supp. 555 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 1990

Plaintiffs appealed these *559 later two decisions to the Departmental Appeals Board (DAB). … Brown, 617 F.2d 740, 744 (D.C.Cir.1979) (quoting Blue v. Bureau of Prisons, 570 F.2d 529 (5th Cir. 1978)). Other states concerned with § 627 compliance may benefit from the information plaintiffs sought.

Singh v. Aarp

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2020

See Browning-Ferris Indus. of Cal. v. NLRB, 911 F.3d 1195, 1201 (D.C. Cir. 2018) (citing NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 691 F.2d 1117 (3d Cir. 1982)). … Whether the employer retained the power to fire the plaintiff is only one factor to consider under the Browning-Ferris test for joint employers. See Nytes v. Trustify, Inc., 297 F. Supp. 3d 191, 204 (D.D.C. 2018).

Arnett v. American National Red Cross

78 F.R.D. 73 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1978

See Lo Re v. … In Bachman v.

Smartmatic USA Corp. v. Powell

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 2026

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 499 (D.D.C. 1977). And “[e]nforcing th[is] rule[] is largely a matter for the trial court’s discretion.” Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 669 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 498.

Thomas v. US Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2019

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). It also assists the court in determining whether it has jurisdiction over the subject matter.

Murphy v. Brockenborough

District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 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 Lewandowski v. Prop. Clerk, 209 F. Supp. 2d 19, 22 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Sunshine Anthracite Coal Co. v. Adkins, 310 U.S. 381, 402–03 (1940)); Wilson v. Fullwood, 772 F. Supp. 2d 246, 261 (D.D.C. 2011). v.

Christian v. Washington District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2026

See Brown v Whole Foods Market Group, Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 15152 (D.C. … Jul. 30, 1986) (dismissing due process claim where the plaintiff “did not seek review of the Housing Board’s decision . . . and ha[d] not advanced any allegations . . . to show that the Housing Board’s decision was in bad

Maye v. Reno

231 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 2002

In Siegert v. … See Bush v. Lucas, 462 U.S. 367, 375-76 , 103 S.Ct. 2404 , 76 L.Ed.2d 648 (1983); Spagnola v. Mathis, 859 F.2d 223, 228-29 (D.C.Cir.1988); see also Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976).

National Black Chamber of Commerce v. US Black Chamber, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 2011

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

Curry-Bey v. Jackson

422 F. Supp. 926 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 1976

Board of *933 Parole rather than the United States Board of Parole, which is governed by a different set of standards. … Board rather than the U.S. Board.

L'Enfant Plaza North, Inc. v. District of Columbia Redevelopment Land Agency

300 F. Supp. 426 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 1969

These statutory provisions are found in the District of Columbia Code, Title V, Section 701, et seq. … these statutory provisions an urban renewal plan was adopted for what is known as the Southwest Urban Renewal Area on April 5, 1956, by the National Capital Planning Commission and approved on November 30, 1956, by the Board

Long v. Kent

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2010

See Haines v. Kerner , 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Nonetheless, pro se plaintiffs 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).

Jackson v. United States Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2020

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 vy. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Gaither v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 8, 2009

See Pl.’s Opp’n, Ex. 11 (Deposition Excerpt of Marvin Brown). … (quoting D.C. v. Brown, 589 A.2d 384, 388, n. 6 (D.C. 1991)).

Pailes v. United States Peace Corps

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 2013

Drake v. FAA, 291 F.3d 59, 66 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (emphasis in original) (citing l \t\\ Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980)); see I.A.M Nat’l Pension Fund v. Indus. Gear Mfg. Co., 723 F.2d 944, 949 (D.C. … Cir. 20l0) (citing Arizona v. California, 530 U.S. 392, 412-13 (2000); Brown v. D,C., 514 F.3d l279, 1285-86 (D.C.

Chambers v. Office of the Attorney General

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2024

Cir. 2022), ECF No. 67-1, but the en banc court reversed this Court’s dismissal of the plaintiff’s discrimination claim and a Circuit panel’s affirmance of the dismissal, concluding that its ruling in Brown v. … Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 285 F.R.D. at 136; see, e.g., Johnson v.

Eastern Pequot Tribal Nation v. Salazar

934 F. Supp. 2d 272 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2013

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … See McNeil v.

Diamond v. McKenzie

602 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 1985

The hearing officer correctly concluded that those requirements are not contained in the Rules of the District of Columbia Board of Education Board Rules. … V Two additional issues must be addressed.

Cutchin v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2019

Ashcroft v. al-Kidd, 563 U.S. 731, 743 (2011) (quoting Malley v. Briggs, 475 U.S. 335, 341 (1986)). … For example, Cutchin notes that Muñoz testified at a probable cause hearing that Cutchin did not necessarily have to pay a fare when he boarded the 90 bus, see id. at 5, while at trial Muñoz testified that Cutchin boarded