Case law

Freeland v. Iridium World Communications Ltd.

545 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 3, 2008

See Kowal v. … A senior Motorola official once commended one of Motorola’s designees on the Iridium board because he “[ajctively represented Motorola’s interest on the ILLC board.... ” A 1996 letter from an Iridium board member stated:

Pinkney v. Robinson

913 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 1996

Colorado State Board of Agriculture, 998 F.2d 824, 832 (10th Cir.), cert. denied, — U.S.-, 114 S.Ct. 580 , 126 L.Ed.2d 478 (1993); Lipsett v. University of Puerto Rico, 864 F.2d 881, 896-98 (1st Cir.1988); Mabry v. … Cohen v. Brown University, 991 F.2d 888, 902 (1st Cir.1993) (declining to apply Title VII burden-of-proof rules; limiting Lipsett to employment context). But see Franklin v. Gwinnett County Pub.

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.

Jordan v. Gant

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2020

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). … See Compl. ¶ V (Certification and Closing).

Lodhi v. Hobson

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 19, 2023

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).

Central of Georgia Railroad v. United States

410 F. Supp. 354 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 17, 1976

•On review of the Commission’s orders, this court concluded that the Commission, given its acceptance of the Review Board’s findings, was without statutory authority to impose that burden of proof on the carriers; and we … The Government bases such a requirement on various cases in the court of appeals for this circuit, Greater Boston Television v. FCC, 143 U.S.App.D.C. 383 , 463 F.2d 268 , 287-88 (1971) and NLRB v.

Miller v. Rogers

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2022

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). 1  Plaintiff’s complaint, in its entirety, alleges his “music book was stolen by Mr. E. … Bush v. Butler, 521 F. Supp. 2d 63, 71 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 373-74 (1978)).

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.

Lopiccolo v. American University

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2011

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA ADAM LOPICCOLO, : : Plaintiff, : CIVIL ACTION : v … ORDER AND NOW, this 29th day of March, 2011, upon consideration of the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(2), (3), and (6) of Defendants American University, the Board

Martin v. Leonhart

717 F. Supp. 2d 92 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2010

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). A complaint must present “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face” and “above the speculative level.” Bell Atlantic Corp. v. … See, e.g., McKinney v.

Doyle v. Tomlinson

265 F. 461 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 1920

For the reasons announced in the preceding case, Brown v. Tomlinson (No. 1254) 49 App. D. C. —, 265 Fed. 460 , we affirm he decision of the Patent Office. Affirmed.

Allen v. Agrawal

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 21, 2022

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.

Bank of America, National Association v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation

962 F. Supp. 2d 165 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2013

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Assoc., 937 F.2d 268, 272 (5th Cir. 1991); see also, Adams v. Resolution Trust Corp., 927 F.2d 348, 354 (8th Cir. 1991) (the “court is bound by the Bank Board’s worthlessness determination”); Ward v.

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.

Ennis v. Lott

589 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2008

See Haynesworth v. … .”); Arnold v.

Narce v. Mervilus

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2023

Robinson v. Farley, 264 F. Supp. 3d 154, 160–61 (D.D.C. 2017) (Brown Jackson, J.) (alterations in original accepted and citations omitted).2 This principle carries particular force at the motion to dismiss stage. … See, e.g., Brown v. District of Columbia, 390 F. Supp. 3d 114, 124–25 (D.D.C. 18 2019) (Brown Jackson, J.)3; see also Billups v.

Harmon v. Meese

690 F. Supp. 65 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 1988

Compare id. with Lovvorn v. … E.g., NFFE v. Carlucci, supra, 680 F.Supp. at 433-34 ; AFGE v. Meese, supra, at 553-54; RLEA v. Burnley, supra, 839 F.2d at 588.

Yusuff v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2025

Johnson–Brown v. 2200 M St. LLC, 257 F. Supp. 2d 175, 177 (D.D.C. 2003). … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Weaver v. Hanna

122 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 15, 2000

boarding the train, drank some of it before the train trip, and finished the bottle after leaving the Metro. … See Wardlaw v.

Youmans v. Astrue

856 F. Supp. 2d 218 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 2012

Brown, Kassahun and Allen. (Id. at 7-8.) … Butler v.