Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

Filtersdcd

10,000+ results

0.81s

  • Alton & Southern Railway Company v. Brotherhood of Maintenance of Way Employes division/ibt

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2022

    BNSF Railway v. … See ARASA v. Soo Line R.R., 891 F.2d 675 (8th Cir. 1989); UTU v. Grand Trunk Western R.R., 901 F.2d 489 (6th Cir. 1990).

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Graybeal v. American Savings & Loan Ass'n

    59 F.R.D. 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 24, 1973

    In Shields v. … The Report and Recommendations werd approved by the Board of Regents on March 15, 1972. . 15 U.S.C. § 1640 (e). . Ratner v. Chemical Bank New York Trust Co., 54 F.R.D. 412 (S.D.N.Y. 1972); see also Shields v.

    Cited 54 timesPublished
  • Freeman v. Phillips

    District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 12, 2020

    Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … (citing 5 U.S.C. § 552a(j) (authorizing agencies to make exemptions) and 28 C.F.R. § 16.97 (listing BOP exemptions)); Brown v. BOP, 602 F.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Schwebel v. Orrick

    153 F. Supp. 701 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 1957

    Goldsmith v. U. S. Board of Tax Appeals, 1926, 270 U.S. 117 , 46 S.Ct. 215 , 70 L.Ed. 494 ; Herman v. Dulles, supra. 16 . See notes 8 and 9, supra. 17 . Camp v. Herzog, supra. 18 . … Civil Aeronautics Board, 1953, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 153, 199 F.2d 181, 186 , certiorari denied 344 U.S. 922 , 73 S.Ct. 386 , 97 L.Ed. 710 . 22 . United States v.

    Cited 13 timesPublished
  • District of Columbia v. Department of Labor

    34 F. Supp. 3d 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2014

    Sherwood v. Washington Post, 871 F.2d 1144, 1148 n.4 (D.C. Cir. 1989), quoting McKenzie v. Sawyer, 684 F.2d 62, 68 n.3 (D.C. Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Berger v. … v. FCC, 131 F.3d 1044, 1047 (D.C. Cir. 1997).

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Fields v. Office of Johnson

    520 F. Supp. 2d 101 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 10, 2007

    See, e.g., Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C.Cir.1999). … See, e.g., Chung v. Washington Metro. Area Trans. Auth., 2007 WL 1154084 at *3 (D.D.C. Apr. 18, 2007); Al-Mahdi v. D.C. Pub. Schs., 2005 WL 3272075 at *5 (D.D.C. Dec.2, 2005).

    Cited 44 timesPublished
  • United States v. Kelly

    District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 2023

    Caron v. … Pierre v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Cohen v. Islamic Republic of Iran

    238 F. Supp. 3d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 1, 2017

    That evening, the Cohen family boarded the Number 2 Egged Bus to return home. Id. … V.

    Cited 54 timesPublished
  • Morley v. United States Central Intelligence Agency

    245 F. Supp. 3d 74 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2017

    Fensz‘er v. Brown, 617 F.2d 740, 744 (D.C. Cir. 1979). … See Maya’ak v. U.S. Dep't of Justz`ce, 579 F.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Blair v. Norwegian Caribbean Lines, A/S

    622 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 20, 1985

    They therefore chose not to board the ship and instead stayed overnight to seek a refund from A AAABCO. Neither NCL nor A AAABCO has given plaintiffs any refund to date. Complaint 1140. … See, e.g., Goldlawr, Inc. v. Heiman, 369 U.S. 463, 466 , 82 S.Ct. 913, 915 , 8 L.Ed.2d 39 (1962); Taylor v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Latson v. Sessions

    256 F. Supp. 3d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2017

    Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 152 (1984). In this case, the plaintiff received notice of the DOJ’s final agency decision on March 16, 2016. See Compl. ¶ 8. … See Horsey v. Harris, 953 F. Supp. 2d 203, 211 (D.D.C. 2013) (finding that equitable tolling did not apply because there was no explanation asserted by the pro se plaintiff for her untimely filing); Brown v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Hagmeyer v. United States Department of Treasury

    647 F. Supp. 1300 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 1986

    Plaintiff appealed the full Board’s decision to the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See generally Hagmeyer v. Dept. of Treasury, 757 F.2d 1281 (Fed.Cir.1985). … See Bivens v.

    Cited 11 timesPublished
  • Owens v. U. S. Bureau of Prisons

    379 F. Supp. 547 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1974

    Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, 157 U.S.App.D.C. 121 , 482 F.2d 710 (1973). … See Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, supra. Defendants impliedly recognize this fact by virtue of their release of most of Mr. Owens’ records.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Gur-Ravantab v. Georgetown University

    District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 16, 2024

    Lane v. … Bogosian v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Perez v. Becerra

    District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 13, 2022

    Brown v. Dist. of Colum., 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008). The Perezes proceed without counsel. This triggers special solicitude for them. … Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (cleaned up). More, courts assess a pro se complaint “in light of all filings, including filings responsive to a motion to dismiss.” Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Jordan v. United States

    District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 25, 2010

    Jordan, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. … See Taylor v. United States Board of Parole, 194 F.2d 882, 883 (D.C. Cir. 1952) (an attack on one's conviction and sentence is properly pursued by motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255); Ojo v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Vasser v. Shinseki

    228 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 29, 2016

    Cir. 1988) (MacKinnon, J., concurring) (citing Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C. Cir. 1985)); see also Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C. … In Hairston v.

    Cited 82 timesPublished
  • Afram v. United Food and Commercial Workers Unions and Participating Employers Health and Welfare Fund

    958 F. Supp. 2d 275 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2013

    Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545, 548-49 (D.C. Cir. 1999) (citing Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962)); Smith, 598 F. Supp. 2d at 47 (citing Atchinson v. District of Columbia, 73 F.3d 418, 425 (D.C. … Henok v. Chase Home Fin., LLC, 915 F. Supp. 2d 109, 114 (D.D.C. 2013) (quoting Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002)); see also Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Hamilton Securities Group Inc. v. Department of Housing & Urban Development

    106 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 2000

    Corp. v. … The draft audit report is analogous to the Regional Board recommendations protected under the deliberative process privilege in Renegotiation Board v. Grumman Aircraft Eng.

    Cited 23 timesPublished
  • Miango v. Democratic Republic of Congo

    District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2017

    OHJDO FRQFOXVLRQV Browning v. … Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown  86     XVXDOO\ UHTXLULQJ ³>D@ SDWWHUQ RI VLPLODU FRQVWLWXWLRQDO YLRODWLRQV´ Id.

    Cited 0 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.