Case law

United States v. Sparks

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2022

Because it has not, and because the burden is on the prosecution to show that subsequent statements were not “obtained by exploitation of an illegal arrest,” Brown v. … V.

Fillmore v. AT & T Mobility Services LLC

140 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2015

See Brown v. Whole Foods, 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (court should consider “the facts alleged in all of [a pro se plaintiff’s] pleadings” when evaluating a defendant’s motion to dismiss). … Sparrow v. United Air Lines, Inc., 216 F.3d 1111, 1113 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting Schuler v. United States, 617 F.2d 605, 608 (D.C. Cir. 1979)) (citation omitted); see also Jerome Stevens Pharms., Inc. v.

Ginger v. District of Columbia

477 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 2007

Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127, 1131 (D.C.Cir.2002) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C.Cir.1999)). “Mere idio-syncracies of personal preference are not sufficient to state an injury.” … Dist. v.

Commission v. C & P Telephone Co.

813 F. Supp. 874 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 1993

FTC v. Texaco, Inc., 555 F.2d 862 , 871-72 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied sub nom. Standard Oil Co. v. FTC, 431 U.S. 974 , 97 S.Ct. 2939 , 53 L.Ed.2d 1072 (1977) (citing Endicott Johnson Corp. v. … In Detroit Edison, the Supreme Court overturned an order of the National Labor Relations Board that directed an employer to disclose its aptitude tests to a union.

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.

Norris v. Salazar

746 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2010

Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519, 520 , 92 S.Ct. 594 , 30 L.Ed.2d 652 (1972). … Her petition in that matter was denied on May 2, 2006, and an EEOC review board affirmed the ruling on January 31, 2007. Id., Ex. 4. 3 . Rule 15 was amended on December 1, 2009.

Graphic Communications Conference / International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Local 285m v. McDonald & Eudy Printers, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 29, 2018

Willis v. Willis, 655 F.2d 1333, 1336 (D.C. Cir. 1981); see also Berwyn Fuel, Inc. v. Hogan, 399 A.2d 79, 80 (D.C. 1979) (per curiam). … DATE: November 28, 2018 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Collett v. Socialist Peoples' Libyan Arab Jamahiriya

362 F. Supp. 2d 230 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 2005

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Development v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … Warren, 353 F.3d at 39 ; Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . 2.

Kerr v. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2018

Through this lawsuit, Plaintiff seeks judicial review of a decision issued by the Foreign Service Grievance Board (“FSGB”). … See Latson v. Sessions, 256 F.

Brooks v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2024

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). … Ho, 106 F.4th at 50 (quotation marks omitted) (quoting Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. Cir. 2015)). III.

Miller v. SBA Towers V, LLC

391 F. Supp. 3d 123 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 8, 2019

He alleges that Defendants SBA Towers V, LLC and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC (the "Wireless Defendants") and the City of Gloucester intentionally deprived him of statutorily required notice of the Zoning Board of Appeals … ."); Olim v.

In Re NBW Commercial Paper Litigation

813 F. Supp. 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 1992

The parties cite two cases to the court on the issue, Securities Industry Ass'n v. Board of Governors, 468 U.S. 137 , 104 S.Ct. 2979 , 82 L.Ed.2d 107 (1984) (referred to as "Bankers Trust I" ), and Reves v. … Securities Industry Ass'n v. Board of Governors, 468 U.S. 137 , 140 n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 2979 , 2981 n. 1, 82 L.Ed.2d 107 . [5] The D.C. Circuit later reached the same conclusion. Securities Industry Ass'n v.

Spencer v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 2011

See Oj0 v. Immigration & Naturalization Serv., 106 F.3d 680, 683 (5th Cir. l997) (stating that a motion under Section 2255 "is the proper means of attacking errors that occurred during or before sentencing"); Taylor v. … Board of Parole, 194 \ \\ F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. l952) (stating that a motion under Section 2255 is the proper vehicle for challenging the constitutionality of a statute under which a defendant is convicted).

Pagliaroni v. Mastic Home Exteriors, Inc.

310 F. Supp. 3d 274 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2018

In addition to cracking, Pagliaroni also saw mold growth and swelling and warping of the Oasis deck boards, which concerned him. D. 269, ¶¶ 17-18; D. 271 at 3-4. … Brown v. Rhode Island , 511 Fed. Appx. 4 , 6 (1st Cir. 2013) (per curiam) (quoting Ysais v. New Mexico , 373 Fed. Appx. 863 , 866 (10th Cir. 2010) ). Diaz-Fonseca 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.

Baker v. United States

390 F. Supp. 532 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 1975

The District of Columbia Circuit does recognize the A.P.A. as an independent basis of jurisdiction, and has affirmed this most recently in Pickus v. Board of Parole, 507 F.2d 1107 (D.C.Cir.1974). … Armstrong & Armstrong, Inc. v. United States, 356 F.Supp. 514, 520-21 (E.D.Wash.1973); Poirier v. C.I.R., 299 F.Supp. 465, 466 (E.D.La.1969); Richfield Oil Corp. v.

Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. v. Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2016

According to Plaintiff, in 2009, the individual Defendants wrongfully took control of the Church’s Board of Trustees (“the Board”). … The Church had been incorporated and operating under the laws of the District of Columbia as Jericho DC, but the newly constituted Board changed all this.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 15, 2009

SEC v. Belzerian, 29 F.3d 689, 693 (D.C. Cir. 1994), citing Parkland Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n. 5 (1979); SEC v. Gruenberg, 989 F.2d 977, 978 (8th Cir. 1993); SEC v. Freeman, 290 F. … Under SEC v. Savoy Indus., Inc., 587 F.2d 1149, 1168 (D.C.

United States v. BCCI Holdings (Luxembourg), S.A.

980 F. Supp. 496 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 1997

Additionally, the plaintiffs in BCCI Holdings v. … See, e.g., United States v.

Securities and Exchange Commission v. Johnson

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2009

SEC v. Belzerian, 29 F.3d 689, 693 (D.C. Cir. 1994), citing Parkland Hosiery Co. v. Shore, 439 U.S. 322, 326 n. 5 (1979); SEC v. Gruenberg, 989 F.2d 977, 978 (8th Cir. 1993); SEC v. Freeman, 290 F. … Under SEC v. Savoy Indus., Inc., 587 F.2d 1149, 1168 (D.C.