Case law

Tillman v. District of Columbia

123 F. Supp. 3d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2015

Brown Mr. Brown, graduated from Howard University Law School .in 1969. See. Verified Statement of James E. Brown [Dkt. 19-2] at ¶ 2. The Court therefore recommends the following rate of reimbursement for’Mr. … Brown’s work: Date Range of Services 7 Years of Experience V* Laffev Rate •June 1,2013-May 31, 2014 44 (20+ years on Laffey Matrix) $382.50 [Editor’s Note: The preceding image contains the reference for footnote 7 ].. 3.Attorney

Eastridge v. United States

372 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2005

Brown ran to the Godfather. “Just before I went in there, I took a glance ... and saw [Mr. Battle] running with the gun and the group of guys behind him with knives.” Trial Tr. at 139 (Brown). Mr. … Johnson, 552 A.2d at 516 (citing Brown v. United States, 409 A.2d 1093, 1097 (D.C. 1979); Stack v. United States, 519 A.2d 147, 152 (D.C.1986)). See Ray v. United *58 States, 620 A.2d 860, 862 (D.C.1993); Grayton v.

Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States

93 F. Supp. 131 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 10, 1950

Thus, in Gayler v. … In Brown v.

Federal Housing Finance Agency v. Raines

725 F. Supp. 2d 169 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2010

The other cases were originally captioned as Middleton v. Raines (Civ. No. 07-1221), Arthur v. Mudd (Civ. No. 07-2130), and Agnes v. Raines (Civ. No. 08-1093). … LaBranche & Co., Inc. v. LaBranche, 433 F. Supp. 2d 372, 380 (S.D.N.Y. 2006); see also Daily Income Fund, Inc. v.

D.C. Oil, Inc. v. Exxonmobil Oil Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2010

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … 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.”

Snead Ex Rel. C.S. v. District of Columbia

139 F. Supp. 3d 375 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 2015

See Gaston v. … See, e.g., Reed, 2015 WL 5692871, at *13; Tillman, 2015 WL 5011656, at *6; Jones, 2015 WL 5093559, at *5-6; Kirksey-Harrington, 2015 WL 5014144, at *8; Brown v. District of Columbia, 80 F.

Torjman v. Gutmann

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 9, 2011

(internal quotations omitted); see Hagans v. … Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972), Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008), plaintiff’s allegations in the present case present “no federal question suitable for decision.” Best, 39 F.3d at 330.

Merchia v. Ttr Sotheby's International Realty

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 2026

P. 8(a)(2); accord Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007) (per curiam). A motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) “tests the legal sufficiency of a complaint.” Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. … v.

Marine v. Coe

32 F. Supp. 236 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 29, 1940

These proceedings were decided adversely to the plaintiff and, upon appeal from the Board of Appeals, the Court of Custom and Patent Appeals, Marine v. Wright, 74 F.2d 996 , affirmed that action. … In the proceedings had before the Board of Appeals in the Patent Office, it was considered that claim 58 should be rejected for lack of invention over the patent of J. O. Richard, et al., No. 1,441,299.

Stephenson v. Powell

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2018

Defendants are members of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System (the “Board”) in their official capacities; the presidents of the Federal Reserve Banks in their capacities as such; and the Federal Reserve … Second, the Court lacks jurisdiction over Relators’ FCA claims against members of the Board in their official capacities. The Board is a government body that enjoys sovereign immunity. Albrecht v. Comm. on Emp.

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

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2011

However, unlike a jurisdictional award, this determination by the Board does not freeze the duties or work tasks of the employees in the unit found appropriate. Plumbing Contractors Ass'n of Baltimore v. … See Carey v.

United Federation of Postal Clerks v. Blount

325 F. Supp. 879 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 1971

Local 232 v. Wisconsin Employment Relations Board, 336 U.S. 245, 257-259 , 69 S.Ct. 516 , 93 L.Ed. 651 (1948). … Los Angeles Metropolitan Transit Authority v. Brotherhood of R.R. Trainmen, 54 Cal. 684 , 8 Cal.Rptr. 1 , 355 P.2d 905 (1960); Board of Education, etc. v.

Chow Kau v. Clark

83 F. Supp. 969 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 1949

Subsequently, the Board of Immigration Appeals affirmed the order of deportation. … See also Azzollini v. Watkins, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 897 . Cf. Bersoff v. Donaldson, D.C.Cir., 174 F.2d 494 . 28 U.S.C.A. 2201, 2202. See Poliszek v. Doak, 61 App.D.C. 64 , 57 F.2d 430 ; Fafalio v.

Gwendolyn Patricia Smith v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2017

On August 5, 2015, the PBGC’s Appeals Board (“Board”) denied plaintiff’s appeal. AR 20. … Occidental Eng’g Co. v. INS, 753 F.2d 766, 769 (9th Cir. 1985), citing Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971); see also Richards v. INS, 554 F.2d 1173, 1177 & n.28 (D.C.

Loma Linda University Medical Center v. Leavitt

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 16, 2010

The hospital may contest the intermediary’s determination at a hearing before the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (“PRRB” or “Board”). 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a). … (citing United States v. L.A.

Crawford v. Walsh

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2022

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). While the Court must “consider[] in toto” all of a pro se plaintiff’s filings to determine whether they “set out allegations sufficient to survive dismissal,” Brown v.

Hamilton v. Sanofi-Aventis U.S., Inc.

628 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2009

Id. § 32 — 1504(b); see Rustin v. … See Hinson v. Merritt Educ.

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. United States Drug Enforcement Agency

192 F. Supp. 3d 92 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2016

Similarly, in Mayer, Brown, Rowe & Maw LLP v. … Mayer Brown v. I.R.S., 562 F.3d 1190, 1193 (D.C. Cir. 2009).

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

846 F. Supp. 2d 247 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 2012

Harbury, 522 F.3d at 422 (collecting cases); see also Kalil v. Johanns, 407 F. Supp. 2d 94, 98 n.3 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Brown v. … Brown v. Watts, 993 A.2d 529, 533 (D.C. 2010) (emphasis added). The employee must choose and pursue one of these two “methods at the outset of the appeal.”

Doyle v. Brock

632 F. Supp. 256 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 1986

Donovan v. … Shepard v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 652 F.2d 1040, 1043 (D.C.Cir.1981). The meeting attendance requirement as applied by the Únion was “unreasonable” under the Department’s own regulations.