Case law

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.

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.

Auleta v. United States Department of Justice

80 F. Supp. 3d 198 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 2015

See Warren v. … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to “state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.”

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.

Hargrave v. Washington Post

District Court, District of Columbia · May 12, 2009

Dameron v. Washington Magazine, Inc., 779 F.2d 736, 739 (D.C. … P. 8.; Brown v.

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.

Kim v. Financial Industry Regulatory Authority, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 6, 2023

Saad v. SEC, 873 F.3d 297, 299 (D.C. Cir. 2017); Dkt. 2-1 ¶ 62. Its board has twenty-two directors selected by FINRA’s members. … and -removable board and officers governing its state action.”

Adams v. Department of Mental Health of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 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). … Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 3 F. Supp. 2d 1473, 1475 (D.D.C. 1998) (citing Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Am. Sec. Bank, N.A., 890 F.2d 456, 463 n.11 (D.C. Cir. 1989)). B.

Hart v. Wiggins

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2019

S(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 66l, 668_71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Calz'fano, 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 Conslr. Corp., 71 F.

Fowler v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2020

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Here, the ABRA is an independent agency within D.C. government overseen by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board. D.C. Code §§ 25- 201(c)(1), 25-202.

Seminole Pipeline Co. v. Vogt

794 F. Supp. 438 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 1992

F.C.C. v. … Cf., McNary v.

Araya v. Bayly

875 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2012

Id.; see also Brown v. Koenick, No. 96-5296, 1997 WL 150101, at  - 8 - *1 (D.C. Cir. … See, e.g., Brown, 1997 WL 150101, at *1 (dismissing challenge to divorce proceedings brought against state judge and others under Rooker-Feldman doctrine); Wall v. Wall, No. 2:09-cv-527-MEF, 2009 WL 3110208, at *1 (M.D.

Khoshmood v. Nicholas

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 2018

Jarrell v. Tz`sch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. l987). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. l977). The plaintiff appears to bring this action against the attorney who represented him in a criminal matter.

Ruther v. Woman Tennis Assn

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 4, 2017

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 v. Call`fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Nelson v. Williams

750 F. Supp. 2d 46 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2010

The USPC’s decision was affirmed on administrative appeal by the National Appeals Board. Nelson v. Williamson, No. 3:CV-07-1870, 2007 WL 4592330 , at *1 (M.D.Pa. … of Parole (“Parole Board”), see D.C.