Case law

Queen v. Schmidt

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2011

Republic of Venez. v. Philip Morris, Inc., 287 F.3d 192, 196 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Johnson-Brown v. 2200 M St. LLC, 257 F. Supp. 2d 175, 177-78 (D.D.C. 2003). … Kokkonen v. Guardian Live Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); Wilson v. Republic Iron & Steel Co., 257 U.S. 92, 97 (1921); Nat’l Org. for Women v. Mut. of Omaha Ins. Co., 612 F.

Douglas v. Hampton

338 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 1972

Griggs v. … See Holden v. Finch, 446 F.2d 1311 (D. C.Cir. 1971).

Wilkins v. Daley

49 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 3, 1999

Singleton v. Harbin, 1996 U.S.Dist. LEXIS 4865. The fifteen-day, filing requirement is subject to equitable tolling, Saltz v. … Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984). The record offers no evidence that plaintiff acted diligently to preserve her claim.

Lockwood v. Family

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 4, 2017

See Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972). Even pro se litigants must comply with the F ederal 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. l977). The Court has reviewed the plaintiffs complaint and finds that it fails to meet the stande set forth in Rule 8(a).

Williams v. Perez

110 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 2015

App’x 341, 341 (9th Cir. 2013) (“Williams V”). … See Compl. at 5; Williams V, 551 F. App’x at 341.

Consolidated Edison Co. v. Bodman

477 F. Supp. 2d 198 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2007

Brown (“Brown Deck”) ¶ 20. [OHA has] concluded that there are scenarios under which it may be impracticable to distribute 100% of all remaining funds to eligible claimants. In the event that a court is to award Mr. … See Phoenix Petroleum Co. v.

McAlister v. Potter

733 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2010

See Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 832-33 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Bayer, 956 F.2d at 332. … Konarski v. Brown, 2004 WL 1249346 , *1, 2004 U.S.App. LEXIS 11277, Civ. No. 03-5340, *2 (D.C.Cir.2004); Perkins v.

Lane v. Vasquez

961 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2013

Cir. 1998) (en banc). 72// Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 458-59 (D.C. Cir. 1999). 73// See Porter v. Shah, 606 F.3d 809, 816 (D.C. Cir. 2010). … 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.”

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.

Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v. Mathews

410 F. Supp. 336 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 1976

Calvert Cliffs Coordinating Committee v. Atomic Energy Commission, 146 U.S.App.D.C. 33 , 449 F.2d 1109 , 1112 (1971). … As the Court of Appeals noted in Calvert Cliffs, What possible purpose could there be in requiring the “detailed statement” to be before hearing boards, if the boards are free to ignore entirely the contents of the statement

Payne v. Locke

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2011

See, e.g., Augustus v. Locke, 699 F. Supp. 2d 65, 6 71–72 (D.D.C. 2010); Abdelkarim v. Tomlinson, 605 F. Supp. 2d 116, 120 (D.D.C. 2009); Brown v. Tomlinson, 462 F. … .”); Brown, 462 F.

DeFrantz v. United States Olympic Committee

492 F. Supp. 1181 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 1980

It is true that in Cort v. … The court, quoting Mitchell v.

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.

Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States

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

Thus, in Gayler v. … In Brown v.

Bacardi & Company Limited v. Empresa Cubana Exportadora De Alimentos Y Productos Varios

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2024

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

Rocky Mountain Health Maintenance Organization, Inc. v. Cochran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2018

of a reviewable Board decision or action.” … is notified of the Board’s decision, reverses, affirms, or modifies the Board’s decision.” 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(f)(1).

Perfvwaybelayouix v. Graham-Drake

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 1, 2022

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977) (Sirica, J.). … Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 498.

Clark-Williams v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

244 F. Supp. 3d 195 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 2017

In its Opinion and Award . . . , the Board . . . denied Plaintiff’s Grievance. 15. The Board’s determinations [were] conclusive on the parties thereto. 16. … See Dkt. 31-1 at 5–6; Dkt. 35 at 2–3; see also Dkt. 30-2 at 19–20 (Board decision).

Hobbs v. Cobb

District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2022

Smith v. Casellas, 119 F.3d 33, 34 (D.C. Cir.) (per curiam), cert. denied, 522 U.S. 958 (1997); McCottrell v. … .”); Brown v. Berrein, 923 F. Supp. 2d 43, 43 (D.D.C. 2013) (dismissing complaint against EEOC for having dismissed plaintiff’s charge of discrimination as untimely without taking disability into account).