Case law

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.

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.

United States v. Hoag

142 F. Supp. 667 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 6, 1956

The first was Brown v. … In an opinion by Chief Justice Vinson, the Court, referring to Brown 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.

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).

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).

Shenandoah Life Insurance v. Jordan

128 F. Supp. 274 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 10, 1954

Minor v. Mechanics’ Bank, 1 Pet. 46, 64 , 7 L.Ed. 47 ; United States v. American Trucking Associations, 310 U.S. 534 , 60 S.Ct. 1059 , 84 L.Ed. 1345 ; United States v. N. E. … “No policy of group life insurance shall be delivered in the District unless it conforms to one of the following descriptions : * * * “(5) A policy issued to the president of the Board of Commissioners, or to the head of

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.

Joy Technologies, Inc. v. Manbeck

751 F. Supp. 225 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 1990

See White v. … V. CONCLUSION 1. The Board correctly affirmed the rejection of claims 1 to 4, 11, 12, 16, and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 4,042,864 as unpatentable under 35 U.S.C. § 103 . 2.

Jones v. Frank

142 F.R.D. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 1992

Bayer v. Dep’t of the Treasury, 956 F.2d 330 (D.C.Cir.1992). See also Jarrell v. United States Postal Serv., 753 F.2d 1088, 1091 (D.C.Cir.1985); Saltz v. Lehman, 672 F.2d 207, 208 (D.C.Cir.1982); Mondy v. … Gomez v. Trustees of Harvard University, 677 F.Supp. 23, 25 (D.D.C.1988).

Strong v. Fort Myer Construction Corp.

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2025

Circuit’s opinion in Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 (1999), which the circuit recently overruled in its en banc decision in Chambers, 35 F.4th at 872. … (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. District of Columbia, 768 F. Supp. 2d 94, 101 (D.D.C. 2011), aff’d, 493 F. App’x 110 (D.C. Cir. 2012)). Mr.

Truesdale v. District of Columbia Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2023

Finally, on December 2, 2019, another superior submitted a Professional Conduct and Intervention Board Review against Truesdale to the Professional Conduct and Intervention Board. Id. ¶ 52. … See Fennell v. AARP, 770 F.

Jackson v. Teamsters Local Union 922

991 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 12, 2014

Union of Operating Engineers, AFL-CIO v. Jones, 460 U.S. 669, 675-76 (1983). Congress has conferred “broad powers . . . upon the National Labor Relations Board to interpret and to enforce” the NLRA. Vaca v. … Nevertheless, while such a refusal “can be helpful when a court must decide whether a dispute is within the [NLRA]’s scope,” it is “not equivalent to a decision by the Board on the merits.” Certco, Inc. v.

Payne v. Department of Youth Rehabilitation Services

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 21, 2019

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F. 3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “[A] complaint [does not] suffice if it tenders ‘naked assertion[s]’ devoid of ‘further factual enhancement.’” Ashcroft v. … Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F. 3d 1016. 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (quoting Brady v. Office of Sergeant at Arms, 520 F. 3d 490, 493 (D.C. Cir. 2008)); Townsend v. United States, 236 F. Supp. 3d 280, 309 (D.D.C. 2017).

Irons v. Schuyler

321 F. Supp. 628 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 26, 1970

The Court has ex *629 amined in particular the cases of Bristol-Myers Company v. Federal Trade Commission, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 22 , 424 F.2d 935 , decided March 26, 1970; Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation v. … The Renegotiation Board, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 425 F.2d 578 , decided March 10, 1970; and Ackerly v. Ley, 137 U.S.App.D.C. 133 , 420 F.2d 1336 , decided December 19, 1969.

Lewis v. District of Columbia

791 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 14, 2011

Marsh, 665 F.2d 1168, 1173 (D.C.Cir.1981) (requiring a finding of constructive discharge to justify post-departure back pay); Brown v. … See Brown v. Felsen, 442 U.S. 127 , 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. 2205 , 60 L.Ed.2d 767 (1979) ("[C]ollateral estoppel treats as final only those questions actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit.” (citing Montana v.

BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), Societe Anonyme v. Mahfouz

828 F. Supp. 92 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 1993

In Pain v. … See Syndicate 420 at Lloyd’s, London v. Glacier Gen.