Case law

Awad v. Obama

646 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2009

CMO 11(A); accord, Al Bihani v. Obama, 594 F.Supp.2d 35 (D.D.C.2009); Ali Ahmed v. Obama, 613 F.Supp.2d 51 (D.D.C.2009). The burden of proof never shifted to Awad. … See, Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, 542 U.S. 507, 521 , 124 S.Ct. 2633 , 159 L.Ed.2d 578 (2004). III. The Evidence A.

National Council of Savings Institutions v. Federal Deposit Insurance

664 F. Supp. 572 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 1987

Inc. v. … Hunt v. Washington State Apple Advertising Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 342-43 , 97 S.Ct. 2434, 2440-41 , 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). 3 . Cf. Abbott Laboratories v.

Townsend v. United States

236 F. Supp. 3d 280 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2017

Chappell-Johnson v. Powell, 440 F.3d 484, 488 (D.C. Cir. 2006) (quoting Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C. Cir. 1999)); see also Czekalski v. Peters, 475 F.3d 360, 364 (D.C. Cir. 2007); George v. … Perry v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 829 F.3d 760, 762 (D.C. Cir. 2016).

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

783 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2011

First, many of BATCo’s statements and policies at issue in this case concerned U.S. subsidiary/affiliate Brown & Williamson and potential litigation in the United States. … Corp. v.

Parker v. Baltimore & Ohio Railroad

555 F. Supp. 1182 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 1983

For instance, in Valentino v. … App.1982) and Brown v. Capitol Hill Club, 425 A.2d 1309, 1311 (D.C.App.1981), and that is therefore applicable to § 1981 actions brought in a federal court sitting in the District of Columbia. See Johnson v.

Pierce v. Yale University

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2019

United States v. Brown Univ., 5 F.3d 658, 665 (3d Cir. 1993). … In United States v. Brown University, 5 F.3d 658 (3d Cir. 1993), for example, the Third Circuit held that setting financial aid was a “commercial transaction” related to charging tuition. Id. at 668.

Davis v. Shalala

862 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 1994

See Brown v. Bowen, 794 F.2d 703, 705-706 (D.C.Cir.1986). Although the claimant bears the burden of proof for the initial four steps, the burden shifts to the Secretary for the fifth step. Id. at 706 . … v.

Atlas Portland Cement Co. v. Fox

265 F. 444 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 1920

Alvey in Fitzgerald v. Wynne, 1 App. D. … Brown v. Pierce, 7 Wall. 205 , 19 L. Ed. 134 . But our statute goes further, and affords protection to creditors, which includes judgment creditors.

Taylor v. Resolution Trust Corp.

973 F. Supp. 178 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 13, 1997

Board of County Commissioners v. Umbehr, — U.S. -, -, 116 S.Ct. 2342, 2347-48 , 135 L.Ed.2d 843 (1996). … See Board of County Comm’rs, — U.S. at-, 116 S.Ct. at 2347 ; Pickering v. Board of Ed. of Township High School Dist. 205, 391 U.S. 563, 568 , 88 S.Ct. 1731, 1734-35 , 20 L.Ed.2d 811 (1968).

United States v. First Choice Armor & Equipment, Inc.

808 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2011

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.’” … Lee v.

Bond Hospitals, Inc. v. Heckler

587 F. Supp. 1268 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 1984

. § 1395f(b)(l), and HCA appealed this adverse determination to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (“PRRB” or “Board”). 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a); 42 C.F.R. § 405.1837 . … On October 8, 1982, the Secretary reversed the decision of the Board.

Kovalevich v. United States Department of Justice Executive Office for United States Attorneys

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 16, 2021

See, e.g., Schoenman v. FBI, 575 F. Supp. 2d 136, 147 (D.D.C. 2008). … DATE: August 16, 2021 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States Circuit Judge

Akinseye v. District of Columbia

193 F. Supp. 2d 134 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2002

. v. … Citing King v. Floyd County Board of Education, 228 F.3d 622 , 627 (6th Cir. 2000)(30 days); Powers v. Indiana Dep’t of Educ., 61 F.3d 552, 557 (7th Cir.1995) (30 days); Rosemary B. v.

Callicotte v. Carlucci

698 F. Supp. 944 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 1988

The Merit Systems Protection Review Board (“MSPR” or “Board”) has established a very clear policy of upholding waivers of one’s appeal rights irrespective of whether the challenge is based on substantive statutory rights. … In Whitlock v.

Patterson v. Florida Department of Children and Families

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 2023

See Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007). … See Achagzai v. Broad. Bd. of Governors, 170 F.

Melkumyan v. Power

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2024

Steele v. Schafer, 535 F.3d 689, 692 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986)). … Co. v.

Lazaridis v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2010

Foretich v. Glamour, 741 F. … (follow “About Us” hyperlink; then follow “Board of Directors” hyperlink); cf. with Dong, 125 F.3d at 879 (finding it “plain that the Smithsonian is not an [executive branch] establishment” where most of the governing Board

United States v. Randolph

789 F. Supp. 407 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 10, 1992

v. … See United States v.

Briggs v. Midfirst

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 6, 2023

Jarrell v. Tisch, 656 F. Supp. 237, 239 (D.D.C. 1987) (citing Redwood v. Council of the District of Columbia, 679 F.2d 931, 933 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520–21 (1972)). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977) (citation omitted). Jones’ petition does not meet the Rule 8 pleading standard.

Devera v. Adams

874 F. Supp. 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 1995

Plaintiff is an Asian/Pacific Islander, his color is brown and his national origin is Filipino. … Defendant does not dispute that plaintiff is a member of a protected class; plaintiff is an Asian/Pacific Islander, his color is brown and his national origin is Filipino.