Case law

Jenkins v. McHugh

258 F. Supp. 3d 115 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2017

Accordingly, the Court will remand this matter to the [board] for further consideration.”); Hill v. Geren, 597 F. … .”); Allen v. Card, 799 F. Supp. 158, 166 (D.D.C. 1992) (remanding to the board despite plaintiffs’ arguments that the board had previously delayed appropriate relief). Mr.

Antrim v. Hoy

District Court, E.D. Wisconsin · Mar 11, 2025

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322–23 (1986). … See Rakas v. Illinois, 439 U.S. 128, 133–34 (1978) (“Fourth Amendment rights are personal rights which . . . may not be vicariously asserted.” (quoting Brown v. United States, 411 U.S. 223, 230 (1973)).

Brown v. Winter

50 F. Supp. 804 · District Court, W.D. Wisconsin · Jul 20, 1943

Co. v. State Board of Equalization of Colorado, 239 U.S. 441 , 36 S.Ct. 141 , 60 L.Ed. 372 ; Buttfield. v. Stranahan, 192 U.S. 470 , 24 S.Ct. 349 , 48 L.Ed. 525 . … In Norman v. Baltimore & Ohio R.

Brown v. Barnhart

370 F. Supp. 2d 286 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2005

See Brown v. Bowen, 794 F.2d at 706 ; Stankiewicz v. Sullivan, 901 F.2d 131 (D.C.Cir.1990). C. … See Marcus v.

Pressley v. Brown (In re Brown)

11 B.R. 12 · District Court, D. Georgia · Mar 10, 1981

Mary Brown, (“Defendant”) hired Mr. Campbell of the Campbell Auction Company to auction a parcel of real estate that she owned. 2. Defendant informed Mr. Campbell that the property was free and clear of all liens. 3. … Sanitation Recycling, Inc. v. Jay Peak Lodging Association, Inc., 428 F.Supp. 1022 (D.Vt.1977); 1 A Collier on Bankruptcy (14th Edition) ¶ 17.16, pp. 1634-1636.

Brown v. Haner

410 F. Supp. 399 · District Court, W.D. Virginia · Mar 19, 1976

Brown v. Brannon, No. 75-2111 (4th Cir. March 2, 1976; Slip Op., at 2). Whether such a construction of Hogge is proper is not for this court to question. … Rizzo, 524 F.2d 571, 575-6 (3rd Cir. 1975); Alfred v. Duling, No. 76-0002-R (E.D.Va. January 15, 1976). 2 . The right to privacy allegation was raised and dismissed in Brown v.

O'DONNELL v. Brown

335 F. Supp. 2d 787 · District Court, W.D. Michigan · Jul 30, 2004

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 569 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2705 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … App. 461, 464 , 234 N.W.2d 566, 568 (1975) (“A municipal department, board or commission such as the Detroit Police Department, is unable to raise funds for payment and is not liable in tort.”) (citing O’Leary v.

Fitzgerald v. Sigler

372 F. Supp. 889 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 1974

It is well settled that the Board is vested with discretionary power. Zerbst v. Kidwell, 304 U.S. 359 , 58 S.Ct. 872 , 82 L.Ed. 1399 (1938); Shelton v. United States Board of Parole, supra. … Sutherland v. District of Columbia Board of Parole, supra, 366 F.Supp. at 272 .

Brown v. Baldwin

356 F. Supp. 831 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Mar 8, 1973

State v. Brown, 443 S. W.2d 805 (Mo. en banc 1969). … State v. Brown, supra, 443 S.W.2d at 810 .

Brown v. Streeter

649 F. Supp. 1554 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Dec 31, 1986

Commonwealth v. Brown, 376 Mass. 156 , 380 N.E.2d 113 (1978). … The Supreme Judicial Court, in its opinion in Brown, 376 Mass. at 163 , 380 N.E.2d 113 , reaffirmed its ruling in Commonwealth v.

Brown v. Wood

59 F. Supp. 872 · District Court, N.D. California · Mar 18, 1943

Said v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 21, 2016

. § 153); see also Abdul-Qawiy, 2005 WL 3201271, at *3 (same), or alternatively, by a special board of adjustment, commonly known as a public law board, see, e.g., CSX Transp., Inc. v. … In other words, she has not demonstrated that the Adjustment Board would “have refused to provide the relief that [she] seeks.” Id. at *5; see also Emswiler v.

Coleman v. Brown

952 F. Supp. 2d 901 · District Court, E.D. California · Jun 20, 2013

Brown v. Plata, — U.S.-, -, 131 S.Ct. 1910, 1947 , 179 L.Ed.2d 969 (2011). … All filings in this Three-Judge Court are included in the individual docket sheets of both Plata v. Brown, No. C01-1351 TEH (N.D.Cal.), and Coleman v. Brown, No. 90-cv-520-LKK (E.D.Cal.).

Brown v. Vail

623 F. Supp. 2d 1241 · District Court, W.D. Washington · Mar 2, 2009

Restraint of Brown, *1243 143 Wash.2d 431 , 21 P.3d 687 (2001). Plaintiffs federal habeas petition was also denied. Brown v. Uttecht, 530 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir.2008), cert denied, Brown v. … This claim is currently before the Washington Supreme Court in Brown v.

General Ins. Co. v. ACADEMY OF VISITATION

598 F. Supp. 1131 · District Court, E.D. Missouri · Nov 16, 1984

The facts at hand are virtually on point with those in Morrison Assurance Co. v. School Board of Suwanee County, 414 So.2d 581 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1982). … See also Madison County Sheriff's Posse, Inc. v.

Brown v. Estelle

468 F. Supp. 42 · District Court, N.D. Texas · Jul 7, 1978

Brown v. State, 535 S.W.2d 640 (Tex.Cr.App.1976). Petitioner presents two complaints in his application for Writ of Habeas Corpus relief now before this court. … Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, supra; Hull v. U. S., 324 F.2d 817 (9th Cir. 1963); Clayton v. State, 502 S.W.2d 755 (Tex.Cr.App.1973).

Brown v. Corsini

657 F. Supp. 2d 296 · District Court, D. Massachusetts · Sep 29, 2009

Reeves v. … “The Federal Constitution does not require evidence that logically precludes any conclusion but the one reached by the disciplinary board.” Superintendent, Massachusetts Correctional Institution, Walpole v.

Brown v. Coughlin

758 F. Supp. 876 · District Court, S.D. New York · Mar 8, 1991

Givhan v. Western Line Consolidated School District, 439 U.S. 410 , 99 S.Ct. 693 , 58 L.Ed.2d 619 (1979); Mt. Healthy City School District Board of Education v. … Co. v.

Riggsbee v. Diversity Services, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2009

Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C. Cir. 1999)). … Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127, 1131 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Brown, 199 F.3d at 457).

Brown v. Mattis

701 F. App'x 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 12, 2017

Thus, unlike in Porter v. Shah, 606 F.3d 809 (D.C. Cir. 2010), the contempt decision does not serve as a res judicata bar to the instant case.