Case law

Miller-Long v. John Hanson Savings & Loan, Inc.

676 F. Supp. 298 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 17, 1987

This rule, followed in a majority of jurisdictions, id., was adopted in the District of Columbia long ago in Corcoran v. Brown, 3 D.C. (3 Cranch C.C.) 143, 145-46 (1827). … Final judgment in that case, John Hanson Savings & Loan, Inc. v. Miller, Civil Action No. 86-620, was entered on September 1, 1987. 2 . See Miller-Long v.

Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Union Station Venture Limited

268 F. Supp. 3d 196 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2017

See Shootman v. … DATE: August 3, 2017 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Dilella v. Burchard

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 2026

Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1245–46 (D.C. 1986). … App’x at 78; Brown, 503 A.2d at 1245. Instead, the “obvious alternative explanation,” Ashcroft v.

United States v. Warner

575 F. Supp. 527 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 1983

See Wong Sun v. United States, 371 U.S. 471 , 83 S.Ct. 407 , 9 L.Ed.2d 441 (1963). … LaFave, 3 Search & Seizure § 11.4(c) (1978 & 1983 Supp.), its decision in Rawlings v. Kentucky, 448 U.S. 98 , 100 S.Ct. 2556 , 65 L.Ed.2d 633 (1980), implies that the test announced in Brown v.

Colorado Springs Production Credit Ass'n v. Farm Credit Administration

758 F. Supp. 6 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 1991

Assistance Board. 12 U.S.C. §§ 2278a, 2278b. … See Lyng v.

Pinkerton v. Reinhardt

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2026

On January 28, 2026, plaintiffs filed a motion for a temporary restraining order, alleging that defendant Point Brittany’s packet for the board meeting to be held on January 29, 2026 indicated that Point Brittany would … Defendant Point Brittany states, however, that the board meeting notice and agenda referenced in plaintiffs’ motion was indefinitely cancelled until further notice. Point Brittany Lim. Resp. Emerg. Mot. at 1-2.

Deppenbrook v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

950 F. Supp. 2d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 2013

Corp. v. … The PBGC Appeals Board rejected each of the appeals. AR at 3, 91, 177, 262.

Cloonan v. Mukasey

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2009

See Oparaugo v. … Gutierrez de Martinez v.

Hotel & Restaurant Employees Union, Local 25 v. Smith

594 F. Supp. 502 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 1984

Finally, the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals may be appealed to the United States Circuit Courts of Appeals. 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a). … Chavez v. INS, 723 F.2d 1431, 1434 (9th Cir.1984); Sanchez v. INS, 707 F.2d 1523, 1527 (D.C.Cir.1983); *513 Martinez-Romero v. INS, 692 F.2d 595, 596 (9th Cir.1982).

Twitty v. Daniel

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 15, 2010

See Taylor v. United Stales Board ofParole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. … . § 225 5); Ojo v.

Gillham v. Holland

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2011

Gillham v. Cauley, No. 09-83, 2009 WL 3247424, at *1 (E.D. Ky. Oct. 6, 2009) (citing United States v. Jalili, 925 F.2d 889, 894 (6th Cir. 1999)). … See Ojo v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 106 F.3d 680,683 (5th Cir. 1997); Taylor v. U.S. Board of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952); see also Gillham v.

Nichols v. Club for Growth Action

235 F. Supp. 3d 289 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2017

.”); Katz v. Chevaldina, 900 F. Supp. 2d 1314, 1316 (S.D. Fla. 2012) (“[T]he general rule [is] that fair use defenses are not ripe for determination before the summary judgment stage.”); Browne v. McCain, 612 F. … The Ad at issue here is similarly political speech expressing a point of view, not commercial speech 4 Plaintiffs cite Browne v. McCain, 612 F. Supp. 2d 1125 (C.D.

King v. Raimondo

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 15, 2025

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000e et seq., “provides the exclusive judicial remedy for claims of discrimination in federal employment,” Brown v. … See Stewart Org., Inc. v.

Crooker v. United States Secret Service

577 F. Supp. 1218 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 1983

Hedley v. United States, 594 F.2d 1043, 1044 (5th Cir.1979); see also Morpurgo v. … do so will result in dismissal”); Satra Belarus, Inc. v.

Touvian v. District of Columbia Public Schools

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2018

Kowal v. MCI Commc’ns Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C. Cir. 1994); see also Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Ctr. for Responsible Sci. v. Gottlieb, 311 F. Supp. 3d 5, 8 (D.D.C. 2018). … See also Soileau v.

Castle v. Caldera

74 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 22, 1999

As another court interpreting a similar service agreement cogently put it, what plaintiff wants to convert into a buy-out provision Acko v. Brown, 489 F.Supp. 216, 220 (D.Minn.1980). … Brown, 627 F.2d 872, 875 (8th Cir.1980) (construing rank rights under Air Force enlistment contract in light of recruiter’s representation); Peavy v.

District of Columbia v. Straus

705 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 12, 2010

Brown & Associates, seeking attorneys’ fees under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (“IDEA”), 20 U.S.C. § 1415 , claiming that the District of Columbia Public Schools (“DCPS”) was the prevailing party in an … (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Hall v. Cole, 412 U.S. 1, 5 , 93 S.Ct. 1943 , 36 L.Ed.2d 702 (1973); Am. Hosp. Ass’n v. Sullivan, 938 F.2d 216, 219 (D.C.Cir.1991); Ellipso, Inc. v.

Monument Realty LLC v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

535 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2008

On September 24, 2007, WMATA staff pub-lically posted its recommendation that the Board accept the Akridge bid. Id. ¶ 80. … Kassem v. Wash. Hosp. Ctr., 513 F.3d 251, 253 (D.C.Cir.2008) (quoting Erickson, 127 S.Ct. at 2200 ). See also Twombly, 127 S.Ct. at 1965 ; Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1281-82 (D.C.Cir.2008).

Soundexchange, Inc. v. Music Choice

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2020

The royalty rates that statutory licensees must pay are determined by the Copyright Royalty Board (the “Board”), which consists of three Copyright Royalty Judges appointed pursuant to the Copyright Act. See id. ¶ 3. … The resulting royalty rates are then set forth in regulations promulgated by the Board. See id. (citing provision of the Copyright Act).

Subh v. Central Intelligence Agency

760 F. Supp. 2d 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 19, 2011

K-L (Letter from Plaintiff to the Privacy Act Review Board and Letter to Plaintiff from Steven A. Raho, III, Chairman, Department of the Army Privacy Review Board, dated December 18, 2009, respectively). … Intelligence Agency v.