Case law

Bano v. Bright Horizons Imf

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2020

See Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. … Corp. v. Waters, 438 U.S. 567, 576 (1978)); see Allen-Brown v. District of Columbia, 174 F.

Polm Family Foundation, Inc. v. United States

655 F. Supp. 2d 125 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 14, 2009

Cockerline Mem’l Fund v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 86 T.C. 53, 58 (1986). … Quarrie v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, 603 F.2d 1274 , 1277 (7th Cir.1979), affirming 70 T.C. 182 (1978); see also Roe Found. Charitable Trust v. Comm’r of Internal Revenue, T.C.

RUSH PRESBYTERIAN-ST. LUKE'S MEDICAL CENTER v. Thompson

362 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 7, 2005

If the provider is dissatisfied with HCFA’s decision, it can appeal the decision to the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (“PRRB” or “the Board”). 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a). … In addition, the Administrator notified the parties that the review would include evaluating: “whether the Board’s decision is in keeping with the pertinent laws, regulations, and other criteria cited by the Board and by

Simms v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 2011

As an initial matter, Hunter could fire her even though they were fellow board members and Simms periodically held executive board positions. Simms Dep. 30:1–19, 128:2–11. … The fact that the board denied Simms’ bonus and that other board members asked her to resign shortly after she filed her formal complaint also demonstrates that she could not influence the board.

Pollack v. Duff

958 F. Supp. 2d 280 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2013

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). I. … Scott v. Harris, 550 U.S. 372, 378 (2007) (alterations omitted), quoting United States v.

Williams v. District of Columbia Superior Court

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 11, 2022

Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (quoting Neitzke v. Williams, 490 U.S. 319, 327 n.6 (1989)). … See Lewis v. Bayh, 577 F. Supp. 2d 47, 54 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Brown v. Dist. Unemployment Comp. Bd., 411 F.

Electronic Privacy Information Center v. National Security Commission on Artificial Intelligence

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2020

It held that the Defense Nuclear Facilities Safety Board was an “agency” under FOIA because the Board’s organic statute called it an “establishment in the executive branch,” one of the categories in § 552(f)(1). … In holding that “Regional Boards” were “agencies” under § 551(1), the court emphasized that “in many cases” they were “empowered to make final decisions not even reviewable by the [Renegotiation] Board.”

Taylor v. Reilly

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2010

See Franklin v. District of Columbia, 163 F.3d 625, 632 (D.C. Cir. 1998) (acknowledging new law transferring parole authority from the former D.C. Board of Parole); Sellmon v. Reilly, 551 F. … See Sellmon v. Reilly, 551 F.

Boucher Inventions, Ltd. v. Sola Electric Co.

35 F. Supp. 504 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 1940

Comstock, said interference being designated and known as Boucher v. Comstock v. … Patent Office; and the appeal of said Comstock having been subsequently dismissed, the Board of Appeals consolidated the two interferences under the number 72,593; and on August 6, 1938 said Board of Appeals affirmed the

Ransdall v. Jahns

273 F. 365 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 1921

The invention in interference relates to leak-proof piston rings, described in the opinion of the Board of Examiners in Chief as follows: “The invention at issue relates to leak-proof piston rings and includes an inner slip … But Jahns was well within the 2-year period, the limitation recently fixed by the construction placed upon the rule in Chapman v. Wintroath, 252 U. S. 126 , 40 Sup. Ct. 234, 64 L.

Southerland v. Soc, LLC.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 2019

Martin v. EEOC, 19 F. Supp. 3d 291, 309 (D.D.C. 2014) (quoting Coltrane v. Lappin, 885 F. Supp. 2d 228, 234 (D.D.C. 2012)). … Date: January 16, 2019 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Porter v. Natsios

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2009

Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 832-33 (1976); Jarrell v. U.S. Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C. … See Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 16 (D.C.

United States v. Barno

340 F. Supp. 1326 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 1972

The sawed-off shotgun was in a brown paper bag; that upon finding the sawed-off shotgun, the barrel of which was slightly in excess of 12 inches long, he arrested the occupant of this room, the defendant Ulysses Bar-no. … See also United States v. Wright, D.C.Cir., 449 F.2d 1355 (1971), and United States v. Thweatt, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 120 , 433 F.2d 1226 (1971). . Harris v. United States, 331 U.S. 145 , 67 S.Ct. 1098 , 91 L.Ed. 1399 (1947).

Liberty Property Trust v. Republic Properties Corp.

570 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2008

At that time, Kramer owned 85% of RPC and served as Chairman of RPC's Board of Directors. (Am. Compl. ¶ 5.) Grigg owned the remaining 15% and also served on RPC’s Board and as its President and Chief Executive Officer. … See, e.g., Rodeo v. Gillman, 787 F.2d 1175, 1177 (7th Cir. 1986); SEC v. Murphy, 626 F.2d 633, 640-41 (9th Cir.1980). 6 . Their reply brief does cite Ballard & Cordell Corporation v.

Young v. Hoage

90 F.2d 395 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 1937

In Beagle v. … And in Giamelli v. Rahtz, 209 App.Div. 720 , 205 N.Y.S. 346, 347 , the injured employee wrote to the board as follows: “I was employed by J. Rahtz, 303 E.

Huthnance v. District of Columbia

268 F.R.D. 120 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 16, 2010

N.L.R.B. v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 421 U.S. at 151. … N.L.R.B. v. Jackson Hosp. Corp., 257 F.R.D. at 309.

Jacobrown v. United States

764 F. Supp. 2d 221 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2011

If the local board does not classify the individual as a conscientious objector, the individual may appeal that determination to the district appeal board. Id. § 1651.1(b). … See Ashcroft v.

Armenian Genocide Museum and Memorial Inc v. Cafesjian Family Foundation Inc

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 15, 2009

On October 23, 2006, without the direction and consent of the Board of Trustees, John Waters, Jr. … v. Lichtenstein, 441 F.

Medina v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 13, 2020

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). … Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad v. Railway Employes' Department

301 F. Supp. 603 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 9, 1969

The services of the National Mediation Board were utilized unsuccessfully, its proffer of voluntary arbitration having been rejected by both parties. … Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. Atlantic Coast Line R. Co., supra.