Case law

Moorman v. Orlando Florida, Police Department

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 2012

Bey v. Cube Smart, No. 12-cv-212, 2012 WL 447680, at *1 (D.D.C. Feb. 9, 2012) (citing 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). Rule 8 highlights “the emphasis placed on clarity and brevity by the federal pleading rules” and a clear and succinct complaint is therefore expressly mandated.

Favors v. Regerstration Dicipline

District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 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.

National Industrial Alcohol Co. v. Commissioner

38 F.2d 718 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 1930

In Red Wing Malting Co. v. Willeuts (C. C. A.) 15 F.(2d) 626, 633 , 49 A. L. … Dean, Collector, v. Hoffheimer Brothers Co. (C. C. A.) 29 F.(2d) 668 .

Masonry Masters, Inc. v. Meese

664 F. Supp. 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 13, 1987

As previously mentioned, the Service and the appeals board rejected the petition. … Hassanali v. Attorney General, 599 F.Supp. 189, 193 (D.D. C.1984); Rosedale and Linden Park Co. v. Smith, 595 F.Supp. 829, 832 (D.D.C.1984).

New Wrinkle, Inc. v. Coe

31 F. Supp. 415 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 1940

Ever since Butterworth v. Hoe, Butterworth v. … Technically and accurately stated, the proceeding here is an appeal from the decision of the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office.

Cook Industries, Inc. v. Secretary of Agriculture

430 F. Supp. 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 1977

Cook Industries pursuant to a contract with Polish buyers commenced loading a cargo of corn on the ship M/V RYSY II, a super-tanker designed to carry oil but deployed by the buyers to carry grain. … On January 10, 1976, when loading was substantially complete, USDA officials boarded the ship and began their own inspection.

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

Bowles Fluidics Corp. v. Mossinghoff

620 F. Supp. 1297 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 1985

Patent No. 4,157,161 (’161 patent), seeks judicial review of a decision of the Board of Appeals (“Board”) of the U.S. … In Simmons Fastener Corp. v.

United States v. Waters

324 F. Supp. 1056 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 1971

Copy of letter from the Board of Parole to Judge Bryant dated July 14, 1970, with attached report from the Youth Center. IV. Transcript of Proceedings before Judge Walsh on November 30, 1970. V. … United States 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.

Hajjar-Nejad v. George Washington University

873 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2012

Wopsock v. … See Dave v.

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

327 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2004

See Local R. 7.1(b); United States v. … V.

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.

United States v. Ali

982 F. Supp. 2d 85 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2013

See United States v. Barlow, 470 F.2d 1245, 1249 (D.C. … United States v. Ali, 718 F.3d 929, 936-37 (D.C. Cir. 2013); see also United States v. Dire, 680 F.3d 446, 469 (4th Cir. 2012).

Renoir v. Governor of Virginia

755 F. Supp. 2d 82 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2010

Renoir v. Davidson, No. 08-cv-333, 2008 WL 2944893 , at *1 (E.D.Wisc. July 25, 2008) (noting accumulation of three “strikes”); Renoir v. Brown, No. 07-cv-166, 2007 WL 1052477 , at *1 (W.D.Va. … District of Columbia, 463 F.3d 3, 6 (D.C.Cir.2006) (quoting Brown v. Johnson, *85 387 F.3d 1344, 1350 (11th Cir.2004)). Mr.

Federal Trade Commission v. Owens-Illinois, Inc.

681 F. Supp. 27 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 8, 1988

Fruehauf Corp. v. F.T.C., 603 F.2d 345, 353 (2d Cir.1979). The first and most critical task 16 is to define the “relevant product market.” 17 Brown Shoe Co. v. … Cellophane, 351 U.S. at 394-95 , 76 S.Ct. at 1007 ; Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 325 , 82 S.Ct. at 1524 ; see also Neumann v. Reinforced Earth Co., 786 F.2d 424, 429-30 (D.C.Cir.1986).

Lanier v. District of Columbia

871 F. Supp. 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 1994

American Tobacco Co. v. Patterson, 456 U.S. 63 , 102 S.Ct. 1534 , 71 L.Ed.2d 748 . … See In Re Mitchell, 977 F.2d 1318, 1320 (9th Cir.1992) (“particular phrases must be construed in light of the overall purpose and structure of the whole statutory scheme.”); Tataranowicz v.

PHOENIX ASSUR. CO. OF NY v. Potomac Sand & Gravel Co.

343 F. Supp. 658 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 1972

Baumann v. Maloney Concrete Company, 278 F.Supp. 463, 464 (D.D. C.1967). … See Brightheart v. McKoy, 136 U.S.App.D.C. 400 , 420 F.2d 242, n. 4 (1969).

Watlington v. Fox

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2009

District and UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Bankruptcy Courts FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Daniel Watlington, Plaintiff, v. … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Greer v. Graphic Communications International Union Officers, Representatives & Organizers Retirement Fund & Plan

941 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 1996

Compare Amaro v. Continental Can Co., 724 F.2d 747 (9th Cir.1984) (no exhaustion required), with Kross v. Western Electric Co., Inc., 701 F.2d 1238 (7th Cir.1983) (exhaustion required). … See Rauh v.