Case law

Lombardo v. Handler

397 F. Supp. 792 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 1975

See, e. g., Soucie v. David, 145 U.S.App.D.C. 144, 448 F.2d 1067, 1073 (1971); Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. … But see Food Chemical News, Inc. v. Davis, 378 F.Supp. 1048 (D.D.C.1974) ; compare Aviation Consumer Action Project v. Yohe, C.A. No. 707-73 (D.D.C. June 24, 1974). See also Nader v. Baroody, C.A.

Long v. United States Department of Health and Human Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2019

In a letter to the Medical Center’s Board of Directors dated April 5, 2004, the MEC outlined three recommended actions and “request[ed]” that they “be adopted by the Board.” Id. … V.

Leib v. Veterans Administration

546 F. Supp. 758 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 1982

Weisberg v. Department of Justice, 627 F.2d at 370 . … In United States v.

Valles-Hall v. Center for Nonprofit Advancement

481 F. Supp. 2d 118 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 12, 2007

Cones v. … Id. at 1131 (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C.Cir.1999)).

Sieverding v. American Bar Ass'n

439 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2006

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). The complaint need only set forth a short and plain statement of the claim, giving the defendant fair notice of the claim and the grounds upon which .it rests. … 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 .

American Bankers Ass'n v. Connell

447 F. Supp. 296 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 7, 1978

Allen, 396 U.S. 168, 192-193 , 90 S.Ct. 314 , 24 L.Ed.2d 345 (1969); Board of Dir. & Officers, Forbes Federal Credit Union v. National Credit Union Administration, 477 F.2d 777, 784 (10th Cir. 1973). … Co. v. United States, 288 U.S. 269 , 283, 53 S.Ct. 337 , 77 L.Ed. 739 (1933); Alabama Association of Insurance Agents v. Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 533 F.2d 224 (5th Cir. 1976).

Klute v. Shinseki

797 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2011

See Plaintiffs Opposition Appendix (“PL’s Opp’n App.”) at 14 (Sullivan Deposition). 3 During his time at the VA, the plaintiff worked for four different judges on the Board of Veterans Appeals. … v.

Mercy General Hospital v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2018

Pre-Moratorium Board Decisions The Administrator cited two Board decisions issued prior to the Moratorium—Concourse Nursing Home v. Travellers Insurance Co., PRRB Dec. No. 83-D152 (Sept. 27, 1983); and St. … Corp. v. Sebelius, 699 F.

Musgrove v. Government of the District of Columbia

775 F. Supp. 2d 158 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 7, 2011

Regs. 5-E, § 1401.2(n)(2002), and (ii) “[violation of the rules, regulations, or lawful orders of the Board of Education or any directive of the Superintendent of Schools, issued pursuant to the rules of the Board of Education … See also, e.g., Brown v. District of Columbia, 251 F.Supp.2d 152, 165 (D.D.C.2003) (finding that the plaintiff failed to satisfy § 12-309 when she sent letters to the District’s police chief, D.C.

Davis v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2012

DAVIS, et al., ) ) Plaintiffs, ) ) v. … Brown, Jr.

Centocor Ortho Biotech, Inc. v. Abbott Gmbh & Co., Kg

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2009

BACKGROUND On December 12, 2007, the United States Patent and Trademark Office Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“USPTO Board”) declared an interference between Abbott GmbH’s ’128 patent and Centocor’ … On August 6, 2009, the USPTO Board ruled in favor of Abbott GmbH on these issues.

Jordan v. Evans

355 F. Supp. 2d 72 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 3, 2004

See Forkkio, 306 F.3d at 1131 ; Stewart v. Ashcroft, 211 F.Supp.2d 166, 174-75 (D.D.C.2002). Indeed, “[m]ere idiosyneraeies of personal preference are not sufficient to state an injury[.]” Brown, 199 F.3d at 457 . … Thompson v. Capitol Police Board, 120 F.Supp.2d 78, 81 (D.D.C.2000).

Tequila Centinela, S.A. v. Bacardi & Co.

247 F.R.D. 198 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 2008

Diederich v. Dep’t of the Army, 132 F.R.D. 614, 621 (S.D.N.Y.1990). … During opposition proceedings before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board (the "Board"), Centinela’s counsel moved for leave to narrow the application’s identification of goods. (Pl.’s Opp'n at 9.)

Coleman v. Napolitano

65 F. Supp. 3d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2014

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

Hudert v. ALION SCIENCE & TECH. CORP.

429 F. Supp. 2d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2006

Although the entire “Findings and Recommendations” section of the Accident Review Board’s report is conspicuously redacted, the conclusion section states that the Board found that the accident had been caused by Grunley-Walsh … The Board based this conclusion, in part, on the inference that because the steam valve in manhole 11 was found open after the accident, Mr.

Federal Trade Commission v. Rag-Stiftung

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2020

But Brown Shoe remains the law, and this court cannot ignore its dictates.” FTC v. Sysco Corp., 113 F. Supp. 3d 1, 27 n.2 (D.D.C. 2015) (quoting FTC v. … FTC v. Tronox Ltd., 332 F. Supp. 3d 187, 208–09 (D.D.C. 2018); see Brooke Grp. Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209, 227 (1993).

Newport Aeronautical Sales v. Department of the Air Force

660 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 7, 2009

In that case, the Railroad Retirement Board denied a FOIA request pursuant to Section 12(d) of the Railroad Unemployment Insurance Act (RUIA), 45 U.S.C. § 351 et seq, which read: Information obtained by the Board in connection … (ii) the Board may disclose such information in cases in which the Board finds *66 that such disclosure is clearly in furtherance of the interest of the employee or his estate;....

Demos v. the United States Washington D.C.

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2019

P. 8(a); see Ashcra]"t v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678-79 (2009`); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 66l, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … v.

Wahl v. Main

280 F. 974 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 3, 1922

The same invention was considered by this court in the case of Wahl v. Wrieht (Nov. 7, 1921) - App. D. C. - , 276 Fed. 455 . … The same holding has *975 been made by the Examiner and Board of Examiners in Chief in the present ease, and in this we again concur. [ 1 ] Walil failed to make the counts of the present issue in his original application,

Jones v. US Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · May 25, 2018

Jones motion are United States v. Kwai Fun Wong, 135 S. Ct. 1625 (2015); Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 137 S. Ct. 1975 (2017); McCarthy v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 809 F.3d 1365 (Fed. … Similarly, McCarthy v. Merit Systems Protection Board is a Federal Circuit case, which does not provide this Court with a change in controlling law to consider. See 809 F.3d 1365 (Fed. Cir. 2016). Mr.