Case law

Ferebee v. United States Post Office

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2021

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.

Campaign for Accountability v. U.S. Department of Justice

280 F. Supp. 3d 112 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2017

Payne Enterprises, Inc. v. United States, 837 F.2d 486, 494 (D.C. Cir. 1988) (citing Renegotiation Bd. v. … Date: December 1, 2017 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge 2 OLC’s initial

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)).

Williams v. Williams

169 F. Supp. 860 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 1958

The law on this point was aptly stated by Justice Edgerton in the case of Brown v. … . * * * This conclusion does not violate the rulings of the Supreme Court in White v. Nicholls, 3 How. 266 , 11 L.Ed. 591 * * * ” (Emphasis supplied). This principle was also followed in the case of Geier v.

East Alabama Medical Center v. Shalala

925 F. Supp. 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 1996

Co. v. Zenith Radio Corp., 475 U.S. 574 , 106 S.Ct. 1348 , 89 L.Ed.2d 538 (1986); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242 , 106 S.Ct. 2505 , 91 L.Ed.2d 202 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. … Simpson v. Young, 854 F.2d 1429, 1435 (D.C.Cir.1988).

Lazaridis v. United States Department of Justice

713 F. Supp. 2d 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2010

(follow “About Us” hyperlink; then follow “Board of Directors” hyperlink); cf. with Dong, 125 F.3d at 879 (finding it “plain that the Smithsonian is not an [executive branch] establishment” where most of the governing Board … Foretich v. Glamour, 741 F.Supp. 247, 250 (D.D.C.1990). 4 . Neither Mr. Lazaridis nor the website suggests that the executive branch has a hand in appointing board members. 5 . Mr.

Prince Edward School Foundation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue Service

478 F. Supp. 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 1979

In Green v. Connally, 330 F.Supp. 1150 (D.D.C.1971), aff’d per curiam sub nom., Coit v. … Griffin v. School Board of Prince Edward County, 377 U.S. 218, 231, 233 , 84 S.Ct. 1226, 1233, 1234 , 12 L.Ed.2d 256 (1964).

Hudson v. Jewell

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 2020

Loudermilk rejected the challenge as untimely and lacking substantiating evidence (id. at 160–61), and Hudson timely appealed to the Interior Board of Indian Appeals (“IBIA”). Hudson v. … Harjo v. Kleppe, 420 F. Supp. 1110, 1146 (D.D.C. 1976), aff’d sub nom., Harjo v. Andrus, 581 F.2d 949 (D.C.

Lipscombe v. Ridley

780 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 1991

Id. at 249, 103 S.Ct. at 1747, citing Connecticut Board of Pardons v. Dumschat, 452 U.S. 458, 467 , 101 S.Ct. 2460, 2465 , 69 L.Ed.2d 158 (1981). … As stated in Harlow v.

Collins Lee v. United States Treasury Department

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2022

Jones v. Changsila, 271 F. Supp. 3d 9, 21 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)). … See Brown v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 164 F. Supp. 3d 33, 35 (D.D.C. 2016). The Court will, therefore, sua sponte dismiss the complaint without prejudice. See Fontaine v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A., 42 F.

Bell v. Donley

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 2010

Supp. 2d at 35-36; Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 251 F. Supp. 2d 152, 162 (D.D.C. 2003); and Sisay v. … Bell attempts to rely on Abdelkarim v. Tomlinson, 605 F. Supp. 2d 116 (D.D.C. 2009), and Brown v. Tomlinson, 462 F.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Musk

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2026

Musk told a member of Twitter’s Board of Directors, whom the Complaint identifies as Board Member A, that he owned at least seven percent of Twitter’s stock. Compl. ¶ 30. Mr. … .”); Brown v. Aetna Life Ins. Co., No. 13-cv-131, 2013 WL 3442042, at *4 (W.D. Tex.

Konah v. District of Columbia

815 F. Supp. 2d 61 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2011

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. … Compare Redd, 232 F.3d at 937-38 (applying a test put forth in NLRB v. Browning-Ferris Indus. of Pa., Inc., 691 F.2d 1117, 1123 (3d Cir. 1982)), with Spirides v. Reinhardt, 613 F.2d 826, 831 (D.C.

Ali v. District of Columbia Government

810 F. Supp. 2d 78 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 31, 2011

Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). … Wiley v. Glassman, 511 F.3d 151, 155 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (citing Brown, 199 F.3d at 452).

National Senior Citizens Law Center, Inc. v. Legal Services Corp.

581 F. Supp. 1362 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 1984

One month later, after extensive discussion at a Board meeting, the LSC Board of Directors ordered the staff to conduct a study of the activities of the national support centers. … San Antonio, Texas v.

Jara v. U.S. Capitol Police

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2023

Richards v. United States, 369 U.S. 1, 6 (1962). … See Allen v. Brown, 320 F.

Adams v. City of Harrison, Arkansas

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 4, 2022

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). Plaintiff, an Arkansas resident, alleges assorted violations of constitutionally-protected rights.

Butler v. California Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 2019

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). However, 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 y. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). It appears that the plaintiff's claims pertain to the custody of his daughter. The complaint is otherwise unintelligible.

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.

Estate of Esther Klieman v. Palestinian Authority

82 F. Supp. 3d 237 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 2015

Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. at 754 (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. at 2851); see also Alkanani v. Aegis Def. Servs. LLC, 976 F. … Daimler AG v. Bauman, 134 S. Ct. at 754, 758 n.11 (emphasis added) (quoting Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S.