Case law

United States v. Hood

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 21, 2020

United States v. Castle, 825 F.3d 625, 632 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting United States v. Wood, 981 F.2d 536, 539 (D.C. Cir. 1992)). … Gross, 784 F.3d at 789 (Brown, J., concurring) (citations omitted).

Isenstead v. Watson

157 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 1957

For example, in the case of Besser v. … His decision was affirmed by the Board of Appeals of the Patent Office. This Court in a technical matter such as this should not lightly set aside the decision of the Patent Office.

Stanley v. Schmidt

369 F. Supp. 3d 297 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2019

Black was affiliated with all four portfolio companies and served on their Boards of Directors. … Black to cease trading in securities of entities for which he sat on the board of directors.

Arkansas Power & Light Co. v. Federal Power Commission

60 F. Supp. 907 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 1945

Federal Power Commission v. Pacific Power & Light Co., 307 U.S. 156, 159 , 59 S.Ct. 766 , 83 L.Ed. 1180 ; Safe Harbor Water Power Corp. v. … Miles Laboratories v. Federal Trade Commission, supra; Bradley Lumber Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 5 Cir., 84 F.2d 97, 100 , certiorari denied, 299 U.S. 559 , 57 S.Ct. 21 , 81 L.Ed. 411 .

United States Ex Rel. Westrick v. Second Chance Body Armor, Inc.

709 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 4, 2010

Totten v. … When the complaint is construed in the light most favorable to the plaintiff, see Browning v.

Fourstar v. Garden City Group, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2021

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). … Cir. 1992); Panko v.

United States v. Von Der Heide

169 F. Supp. 560 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 1959

It appears from the files of the Federal Parole Board that the defendant became eligible for' parole on September 27, 1957, but that the Board denied his application for this relief on November 20, 1957. … “Like a verdict of a jury it [the plea] is conclusive”, Kercheval v. United States, 274 U.S. 220, 223 , 47 S.Ct. 582, 583 , 71 L.Ed. 1009 ; United States v. Miller, 2 Cir., 254 F.2d 523 .

J & J Sports Productions, Inc. v. Micherie, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2018

See Lopes v. JetsetDC, LLC, 994 F. … DATE: September 27, 2018 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Pro-Football, Inc. v. Harjo

191 F. Supp. 2d 77 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2002

See Hot Wax, Inc. v. … The Board’s ruling rested on an erroneous interpretation of the law of laches, leading to an unreasonable exercise of judgment. Thus the Board’s rejection of the defense of laches was an abuse of discretion.

Davis v. District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency,et Al

949 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2013

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). Such motions allege that a plaintiff has not properly stated a claim; they do not test a plaintiff’s ultimate likelihood of success on the merits. Scheuer v. … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242.

Rand v. Secretary of the Treasury

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.

Stanton v. Reukauf

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 6, 2012

Cutts v. Fowler, 692 F.2d 138, 140 (D.C. Cir. 1982) (citing Wren v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 681 F.2d 867 (D.C. Cir.1982)). … See Borrel v. United States Int'l Communications Agency, 682 F.2d 981, 988 (D.C. Cir. 1982); Wren v. Merit Systems Protection Board, 681 F.2d 867, 875 & n. 9 (D.C. Cir.1982); Carson v.

Kaiser Foundation Hospitals v. Sebelius

828 F. Supp. 2d 193 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2011

The hospital has 180 days from receipt of the NPR to request a review by the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (PRRB). See 42 U.S.C. § 1395oo(a). … The Board reasoned that “because the base-year rate serves as a foundation for future years, it must be as correct as possible.” Id.

Boone v. Mountainmade Foundation

857 F. Supp. 2d 111 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2012

On behalf of the Plaintiffs collectively, Plaintiff Boone reported McComas’ actions to a member of the MountainMade Board of Directors. Id. at ¶¶ 64-66. … E.g., Brandon v. Anesthesia & Pain Mgmt.

Jackson v. Federal Bureau of Prisons

657 F. Supp. 2d 176 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2009

.”); Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 250 (D.C.Cir.2002) (stating that a Bivens claim must show that defendants acted under color of federal law). The collection of a sample of plaintiffs DNA is authorized by statute. … See Kaemmerling v.

Brissett v. Alexandria General District Court

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2009

BRISSETT, Plaintiff, v. … Although plaintiff had obtained a ticket, she states that she neglected to validate her ticket before boarding.

Salesian Society, Province of St. Philip the Apostle, Inc. v. Cissna

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 22, 2021

Mot., ECF No. 42-3 at 24 (citing Everson v. Board of Educ. Of Ewing Twp., 330 U.S. 1, 16 (1947)). However, as explained supra, this is not the case. … See Sherbert v.

Silberman v. Cohen, Jr.

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 29, 2016

The Rule 8 standard ensures that defendants receive fair notice of the claim being asserted so that they can prepare a responsive answer and an adequate defense and determine whether the doctrine of res judicata applies Brown … v.

Jacobrown v. Garcia

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 United States v.

Said v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 10, 2018

with the [Board] via the address she provided,” Def.’s Facts ¶ 34. … Winder v. Erste, 511 F.