Case law

United States v. Jackson

175 F. Supp. 2d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2001

United States v. Hofierka, 83 F.3d 357, 363 (11th Cir.1996); United States v. Almand, 992 F.2d 316, 317 (11th Cir.1993); United States v. MacKenzie, 601 F.2d 221, 222 (5th Cir.1979); United States v. … Francischine, 512 F.2d 827, 828 (5th Cir.1975); United States v. Torrez-Flores, 624 F.2d 776, 779 (7th Cir.1980); United States v. Thomas, 934 F.2d 840, 846 (7th Cir.1991); Brown v.

Witty v. Jones

563 F. Supp. 415 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 4, 1983

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 578 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … Plaintiff’s belief to the contrary constitutes the kind of unilateral expectation rejected as a property interest by the Supreme Court in Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, and by our Court of Appeals in Colm v.

Yablonski v. United Mine Workers of America

305 F. Supp. 868 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 1969

Calhoon v. Harvey, 379 U.S. 134 , 85 S.Ct. 292 , 13 L.Ed.2d 190 (1964). … Wirtz v. Independent Workers Union of Florida, 272 F.Supp. 31 (M.D.Fla.1967); see also Wirtz v. Hotel, Motel and Club Emp.

Lans v. Adduci Mastriani & Schaumberg L.L.P.

786 F. Supp. 2d 240 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 23, 2011

Lans and Uni-board in their respective cases. Lans v. … See Bd. of Managers of 195 Hudson St Condo. v. Jeffrey M. Brown Assocs., Inc., 652 F.Supp.2d 463, 472 (S.D.N.Y.2009) (quoting City of New York v. Welsbach Elec.

Seed Company Limited v. Westerman

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2019

of Patent Appeals and Interferences (“the Board”). … The Board’s rules required that Seed include an English translation of each foreign language application submitted with its motion, See Stevens v. Tamai, 366 F.3d 1325, 1328 (Fed.

Walker v. Weinberger

600 F. Supp. 757 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 1985

In Whitlock v. … See McKelvey v. Walters, 596 F.Supp. 1317 (D.D.C.1984).

Judicial Watch, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Defense

963 F. Supp. 2d 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2013

Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, 849 F. Supp. 2d 47 (D.D.C. 2012), is not to the contrary. … After summarizing the Board of Governors’ argument on a question of waiver—the Board “maintain[ed] that . . . publication [of certain records on the website of a congressional committee did] not waive the Board’s FOIA exemptions

Kim v. Watch Tower Bible and Tract Society of Pennsylvania

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2014

Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009), quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994). … Although mindful that complaints filed by pro se litigants are held to less stringent standards than those applied to formal pleadings drafted by lawyers, see Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972); Brown v.

Fourte v. Spencer

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2019

A writ of habeas corpus is an “extraordinary remedy,” Bousley v. … (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Chappell v. Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 300 (1983)); see also New v. Cohen, 129 F.3d 639, 641 (D.C.

Latinsky v. Engeleiter

747 F. Supp. 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 21, 1990

Id. at 207 (citing Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).) 4 Plaintiffs September 1989 RIF letter does not give him such an interest. … See also Pickering v. Board of Educ., 391 U.S. 563 , 88 S.Ct. 1731 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968).

Hospital of University of Pennsylvania v. Sebelius

634 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2009

See Richards v. INS, 554 F.2d 1173 , 1177 & n. 28 (D.C.Cir.1977), cited in Bloch v. Powell, 227 F.Supp.2d 25, 31 (D.D.C.2002), aff'd, 348 F.3d 1060 (D.C.Cir.2003). … See Hagner v.

Styrene Information and Research Center, Inc. v. Sebelius

944 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 15, 2013

In February 2009, the NTP convened another panel of experts, the Board of Scientific Counselors (the “Board”), to peer review the draft Substance Profile for styrene. See A.R. at 1799, 1814. … Overton Park, Inc. v.

Duncan v. WJLA-TV, Inc.

106 F.R.D. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 1984

Browning Debenture Holders’ Comte, v. DASA Corp., 560 F.2d 1078 (2d Cir.1977).

Workman v. Berryhill

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2020

Brown v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 703, 705–06 (D.C. Cir. 1986). … Brown, 794 F.2d at 706.

Rice v. District of Columbia

715 F. Supp. 2d 127 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 2010

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). “[A] complaint needs some information about the circumstances giving rise to the claims.” Aktieselskabet AF 21. Nov. 2001 v. … Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241 , 1245 n. 2 (D.C.1986). Counts IX and X will be dismissed. C.

Liu v. Zheng

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 2019

Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994); see also Gen. Motors Corp. v. EPA, 363 F.3d 442, 448 (D.C. … Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 (1972); Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C.

Erben v. Yardley

267 F. 345 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 1920

In Lecroix v. Tyberg, 33 App. D. C. 586, and in Gammeter v. Thropp, 42 App. D. C. 564, we field, following our decision in Burson v. Vogel, 29 App. D. … Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App. D. C. 65; Mell v. Midgley, 31 App. D. C. 534; Norling v. Hayes, 37 App. D.

Adams v. Clinton

90 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 2000

Downes, 182 U.S. at 260-61 , 21 S.Ct. 770 (Brown, J.) (emphasis added). … For example, its landmark decision in 1954 that racial segregation of public school students violated the Fourteenth Amendment, see Brown v.

Blakeney v. Wainwright

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 23, 2011

Board of Parole dated November 15, 1978). The Board of Parole granted the petitioner parole on the Youth Act sentence on December 11, 1978, at which time he began to serve the adult sentences. See id., Ex. … Hill v. Johnston, 750 F. Supp. 2d 103, 105-06 (D.D.C. 2010); see Sutherland v. McCall, 709 F.2d 730, 732 (D.C.

Rand v. GEITHNER

730 F. Supp. 2d 118 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2010

. § 2000e et seq., and that the Merit Systems Protection Board’s (“MSPB”) decision at the administrative level was arbitrary and capricious. … Administrative Record at 29-30 (Initial Decision of the United States Merit Systems Protection Board, Washington Regional Office, in Rand v. Department of Treasury) (“MSPB Decision”) (internal citation omitted).