Case law

Fdr Services Corporation of Virginia, Inc. v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 24, 2023

In June 2019, FDR Services appealed the issue to the District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board. Id. ¶ 21. … Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Cargill v. United States Probation Office for the Middle District of North Carolina

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2010

Preiser v. Rodriguez, 411 U.S. 475, 500 (1973); Chatman-Bey v. Thornburgh, 864 F.2d 804, 809 (D.C. … ."); Brown v. Bureau of Prisons, 498 F. Supp. 2d 298,304 (D.D.C. 2007) (citing White, 148 F.3d at 1125-26).

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.

Mallard v. Claytor

471 F. Supp. 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 1978

V. SELECTION OF WILLIAM KEHRES AS HIGHEST QUALIFIED 1. By letter dated June 12, 1975, Mr. … See Albemarle Paper Company v. Moody, 422 U.S. 405, 425 , 95 S.Ct. 2362 , 45 L.Ed.2d 280 (1975).

United States v. Reed

253 F. Supp. 3d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2017

United States v. McNeil, 911 F.2d 768, 773 (D.C. Cir. 1990) (per curiam) (internal quotation marks omitted); accord United States v. Ortiz, 687 F.3d 660, 663 (5th Cir. 2012); United States v. … Hamilton, 46 F.3d 271, 277 (3d Cir. 1995); United States v. Eagle Hawk, 815 F.2d 1213, 1218 (8th Cir. 1987); United States v.

Smith v. Ehrlich

430 F. Supp. 818 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 1976

Thompson, 394 U.S. 618 , 89 S.Ct. 1322 , 22 L.Ed.2d 600 (1968); see Massachusetts Board of Retirement v. … And there is some force to this point given the holding of Williams v.

Bender v. Jordan

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 20, 2010

Lucas v. Spellings, 408 F. Supp. 2d 8, 10 (D.D.C. 2006) (citations omitted); Independence Federal Savings Bank v. Bender, 230 F.R.D. 11, 17 (D.D.C. 2005) (citing Gurary v. … Advisory Committee Note (1993) (subdivisions (b) and (c)); see Reynolds v. The U.S. Capitol Police Board, 357 F.

Steele v. Steele

65 F. Supp. 329 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 10, 1946

In Jamison v. … In Brown v. Brown, 1914, 88 Conn. 42, 48 , 89 A. 889, 891 , 52 L.R.A.,N.S., 185, Ann.

Wagner v. United States Solicitor General

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2023

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). … Linda R.S. v. Richard D., 410 U.S. 614, 619 (1973); see also Sargeant v. Dixon, 130 F.3d 1067, 1069 (D.C. Cir. 1997); Powell v. Katzenbach, 359 F.2d 234, 234–35 (D.C.

National Machine Products Co. v. Ladd

231 F. Supp. 535 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 1964

. § 103 , and was affirmed by the Patent Office Board of Appeals. … The finding by the Examiner and Board of Appeals that such modification would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art does not seem other than proper to the Court.

United Steel, Paper and Forestry, Rubber, Manufacturing, Energy, Allied Industrial and Service Workers International Union, Afl-Cio-Clc v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 20, 2012

Conservation v. … In Coleman v.

Hoch v. Eli Lilly and Company

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2010

Breakman v. AOL LLC, 545 F. Supp. 2d 96, 102 (D.D.C. 2008). GSK LLC’s only member is GSK Holdings, a Delaware corporation. … Hertz Corp. v. Friena’, l30 S. Ct. 1181 (2010).

Dave v. Lanier

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2009

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. B.

Hickman v. Federal Elections Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2009

ruptcy Courts Derian Douglas Hickman, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497,498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Ruther v. Wells Fargo Bank Ltd

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 2017

See Haz`nes v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 5 l 9, 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. Calz`fano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Adams v. Department of Treasury

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2014

Brown v. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). They also "serve[] to sharpen the issues to be litigated and to confine discovery and the presentation of evidence at trial within reasonable bounds." Id. … See, e.g., Hamrick v. United States, Civ. No. 10-857, 2010 WL 3324721, at *l (D,D.C.

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.

Okolie v. Future Services General Trading & Contracting Company, W.L.L.

102 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2015

Buesgens v. Brown, 567 F. Supp. 2d 26, 31 (D.D.C. 2008) (quotation marks omitted). … Goodyear Dunlop Tires Operations, S.A. v. Brown, 131 S. Ct. 2846, 2851 (2011). The existence of general jurisdiction permits the Court to hear “any and all claims” brought against the defendant. See id.

Stark III v. Swift

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 2019

Brown, Laxalt, and List are residents of Nevada, Brown Affidavit, 14-2; Laxalt Affidavit, ECF No. 16-2; List Affidavit, ECF No. 16-3; Keller is a resident of Iowa, Keller Affidavit, ECF No. 15-2; and Puetz is a resident … V.

McDonough v. Mabus

907 F. Supp. 2d 33 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 29, 2012

Frizelle, 111 F.3d at 176 (quoting Dickson v. Sec’y of Def., 68 F.3d 1396, 1404 (D.C. Cir. 1995)). C. Deference Due to Military Corrections Boards In the D.C. … Circuit, review of the actions of military corrections boards is “unusually deferential.” Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319, 324 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (citing Kreis v. Sec'y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1514 (D.C.