Case law

Brown v. District Unemployment Compensation Board

411 F. Supp. 1001 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 10, 1975

Brown v. BROADCASTING BOARD OF GOVERNORS

662 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2009

Broadcasting Board of Governors Fact Sheet, available at http://www.bbg.gov/ about/documents/BBGFactSheet2-09.pdf. 2 . This case has a relatively complicated procedural history. See, e.g., Brown v. … Brown's motion to enforce purported oral settlement *44 agreement); Brown v. Tomlinson, 383 F.Supp.2d 26 (D.D.C.2005) (granting the BBG's first motion for summary judgment); Brown v.

NATIONAL ASS'N OF WATERFRONT EMPLOYERS v. Solis

665 F. Supp. 2d 10 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2009

See Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 302-03 , 99 S.Ct. 1705 , 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979). … In August of 2007, the Benefits Review Board instituted its own rule requiring that decisions and orders issued by the Board use claimants’ initials. 4 .

Brown v. Regan

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 16, 2022

Brown v. Echeveria-Burkes, No. 21-cv-3013, ECF No. 4 at 1. … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002).

Ruiz v. Vilsack

763 F. Supp. 2d 168 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 2011

Welcome Ctr. v. … Guillen v.

Thorp v. District of Columbia

142 F. Supp. 3d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2015

Comm’rs of Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 407 (1997). … Brown v. Argenbright Sec., Inc., 782 A.2d 752, 757 (D.C. 2001) (quoting Boykin v.

Lutes v. Goldin

62 F. Supp. 2d 118 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 30, 1999

Defendant now cites to Brown v. … The rationale in Brown has been extended to the ADEA as well. Thorne v. Cavazos, 744 F.Supp. 348, 351-52 (D.D.C.1990). 19 .

Brown v. Paulson

541 F. Supp. 2d 379 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2008

v. … Hardison v. Alexander, 655 F.2d 1281, 1288 (D.C.Cir.1981); see also Allen, 449 U.S. at 94 , 101 S.Ct. 411 . In the previous action filed by counsel on May 22, 2003 (Brown v.

Brown v. District of Columbia

919 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2013

Plaintiff Stephanie Yvonne Brown (“plaintiff’ or “Brown”) brings this action against the University of the District of Columbia David A. … See Mastro v. Potomac Elec. Power Co., 447 F.3d 843, 850 (D.C.Cir.2006); George v. Leavitt, 407 F.3d 405, 412 (D.C.Cir.2005); Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C.Cir.1999).

United States v. Jovanovic

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2025

See Brown v. Amtrak Corp., No. 03-7003, 2003 WL 22433755, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 27, 2023) (“A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final judgment on the merits which bars further litigation between the same parties.” … See also Thorp v. District of Columbia, 142 F. Supp. 3d 132, 145 (D.D.C. 2015) (noting that dismissal with prejudice “reflect[s] on the merits of the underlying action” (quoting Brown v.

Brown v. Brown

134 F.2d 505 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 1942

Bussius v. Bussius, D.C.1941, 38 F.Supp. 871 . The entire procedure is a consent procedure. Cf. Mahoney v.

Drewrey v. Clinton

763 F. Supp. 2d 54 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2011

Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C.Cir.1985) (stating that “because untimely exhaustion of administrative remedies is an affirmative defense, the defendant bears the burden of pleading and proving it”). … Dist. v.

United States v. King

4 F. Supp. 3d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 9, 2013

United States v. Brown, 504 F.3d 99, 104 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (quoting District of Columbia v. Hunt, 163 F.2d 833, 837–38 (D.C. Cir. 1947)). Section 924(c) is such a statute. … Brown v. Cameron, 353 F.2d 835, 836 n.1 (D.C. Cir. 1965).

Dosso v. Barr

District Court, District of Columbia · May 22, 2020

(quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994))). … Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 829 (1976); see also Kizas v. Webster, 707 F.2d 524, 542 (D.C. Cir. 1983) (“The Title VII remedy declared exclusive for federal employees in Brown v.

Brown v. Brown

97 F. Supp. 237 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 29, 1950

The attorneys who represented the plaintiff in her lifetime oppose said motion allegedly as her attorneys despite her death, and they have also filed a motion for. leave to intervene on behalf of Doris Brown Wesley who asserts

Adams v. Department of Mental Health of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2011

District of Columbia, 980 A.2d 1217, 1223 (D.C. 2009) (explaining that “[t]he jurisdiction of the court and OHR are mutually exclusive in the first instance” (quoting Brown v. … Id. at 860 (quoting Brown v. Capitol Hill Club, 425 A.2d 1309, 1312 (1981)).

Thornton v. Wormuth

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 2025

Cir. 1995) (explaining “that when a Board reviews the merits of a former servicemember’s application under § 1552(a)(1), the decision is subject to judicial review” (citing Chappell v. … The scope of review is narrow, as this Court “review[s] a decision of a military corrections board under an ‘unusually deferential application of the “arbitrary and capricious” standard.’” Roberts v.

Markel v. Del Toro

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2025

citing Chappell v. … The scope ofreview is narrow, as this Court "review[s] a decision ofa military corrections board under an 'unusually deferential application of the "arbitrary and capricious" standard."' Roberts v.

Hawkins v. Holder

597 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 2009

In support of this theory, Hawkins relies on a series of cases from the Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) and the Federal Circuit. See Pl.’s Cross-Mot. at 14-16; Pl.’s Opp’n at 39. … Brown v. Small, 437 F.Supp.2d 125 , 130 n. 7 (D.D.C. 2006) (emphasis in original) (citing Randle v. LaSalle Telecomms., Inc., 876 F.2d 563, 569 (7th Cir.1989)).

United States v. Dahlquist

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2025

See Brown v. Amtrak Corp., No. 03-7003, 2003 WL 22433755, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 27, 2023) (“A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final judgment on the merits which bars further litigation between the same parties.” … Supp. 3d 132, 145 (D.D.C. 2015) (noting that dismissal with prejudice “reflect[s] on the merits of the underlying action” (quoting Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1986), and citing Kenley v.