Case law

Whitehurst v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief Board

418 A.2d 1028 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1980

The Board found that petitioner’s heart condition-a “Wolf-Parkinson-White Syndrome”-was not aggravated by the performance of duty. This conclusion is supported by the expert medical testimony before the Board. … This case was decided by the Board prior to our decision in Seabolt v. Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief Board, D.C.App., 413 A.2d 908 (1980).

Achagzai v. Broadcasting Board of Governors

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 2016

Passenger Corp. v. Morgan, 536 U.S. 101, 114 (2002). … carries the burden of proof, Bowden v.

Woody v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief Board

441 A.2d 987 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1982

Under our holding in Seabolt v. … See Rzepecki v. Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief Board, D.C.App., 429 A.2d 1388 (1981); Whitehurst v. Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief Board, D.C.App., 418 A.2d 1028 (1980).

Christopher Garvey v. Administrative Review Board

56 F.4th 110 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 23, 2022

Therefore, a court typically applies the terms of the APA when reviewing a Board order. See, e.g., Villanueva v. U.S. Dep’t of Lab., 743 F.3d 103, 108 (5th Cir. 2014); Welch v. … [This means that, a Board] decision must be upheld if, considering all the evidence, a reasonable person could have reached the same conclusion as the [Board].” Allen v. Admin. Rev.

Temporaries Inc. v. District Unemployment Compensation Board

304 A.2d 14 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 1973

In Carmichael v. … Co. v. Blagg, 235 U.S. 571, 576 , 35 S.Ct. 167 , 59 L.Ed. 364 ; Middleton v. Texas Power & L.

Ohal v. Board of Trustees

100 F. App'x 833 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 2004

Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 (D.C.Cir.1999), is not to the contrary. … That we ultimately found no such “other materially adverse consequences” in Brown does not preclude them presence in this case.

Brown v. Mid-Atlantic Program Ser. Center

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2009

FILED NOV 3 0 2009 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT clerk U s D_ t _ t d , . . is rlc an FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA Bankruptcy courts ) Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) \ v. ) CivilAction N0. ) Mid-At1antic … As previously advised, see Brown v. M€Carthy, Civ. Action N0. 09-2074 (D.D.C.

Brown v. Prince Georges County Police Department

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 30, 2009

P. 8(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661,668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).  · .. - ... ' Plaintiff, a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, sues police officers in Palmer Park, Maryland, for $100,000.

Brown v. Mental Health and Mental Hygiene

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2009

S.C. section 1001," "baby boy brown certificate of death," and of a "HUD deed of trust," but as a whole, the complaint is incoherent and nonsensical. … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). As drafted, the Complaint fails to comply with Rule 8(a). It would not be possible for any defendant to discern an allegation of injury or wrongdoing.

Brown v. Department of Assessment and Taxation

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2009

WM.ED soil 2 o 2009 UNITED srATEs DISTRICT coURT °'°"" “~5' D‘S*"Ct and FoR THE Disrlucr oF CoLUMBIA bankruptcy C°“"‘°’ ) Jerome Julius Brown, Sr., ) Plaintiff, § v. § Civil Action No. … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff, a resident of Upper Marlboro, Maryland, sues a supervisor of the Maryland Department of Assessments and Taxation.

Kea v. Police & Firemen's Retirement & Relief Board

429 A.2d 174 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1981

In Brewington v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review, D.C.App., 287 A.2d 532 (1972), we specifically made the DCAPA applicable to proceedings before the Retirement Board. … Philadelphia Co. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, 84 U.S. App.D.C. 73, 175 F.2d 808 (1948); Pan American Petroleum Corp. v. Wyoming Oil and Gas Conservation Commission, 446 P.2d 550 (Wyo.1968).

Riffin v. Surface Transportation Board

423 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 27, 2011

This petition for review was considered on the record from the Surface Transportation Board (STB) and on the briefs filed by the parties. See Fed. R.App. P. 34(a)(2); D.C.Cir. R. 34(j). … This argument is foreclosed by our recent decision in Kessler v. Surface *2 Transportation Board, No. 09-1161, — F.3d-, 2011 WL 893267 (D.C.Cir., Mar. 15, 2011).

Live365, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Board

698 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2010

Co. v. … For example, in McCormick v.

Board of Elections v. Democratic Central Committee

300 A.2d 725 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1973

Recently this court adopted in Basiliko v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 283 A.2d 816, 818 (1971), the test set forth in Ballerina Pen Co. v. … V, 1972). 4 . Sierra Club v. Morton, 405 U.S. 727, 734-735 , 92 S.Ct. 1361, 1368 , 31 L.Ed. 2d 636 (1972). 6 . Seripps-Howard Radio v. FCO, 316 U.S. 4 , 62 S.Ct. 875 , 86 L.Ed. 1229 (1942) ; FCC v. Sanders Bros.

Manin v. National Transportation Safety Board

627 F.3d 1239 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 14, 2011

Adm’r v. Wells, 7 N.T.S.B. 1247, 1249 (1991); see also Adm’r v. Peterson, 6 N.T.S.B. 1306, 1307 n.8 (1989). … Our analysis in these cases drew on the Board’s own interpretation of the intent element of intentional falsification. See id. As we noted, the Board declared in Administrator v.

In Re Dietz

633 A.2d 850 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 1993

Brown’s money. … Brown’s money for more than three years without doing anything at all on her behalf. Mrs. Brown has thus been deprived of the use of the money and should be compensated for the loss. Cf. Riggs Nat’l Bank v.

Riffin v. Surface Transportation Board

364 F. App'x 650 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 22, 2010

As the Board explained in the order under review, if an offeror and an offeree railroad have agreed upon the terms of a transaction in an abandonment proceeding, as they did here, then the Board’s role is only to determine … That the Board did.

Lenox Hill Hospital v. Shalala

131 F. Supp. 2d 136 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2000

Co. v. … Enters. v.

Moss v. Civil Aeronautics Board

521 F.2d 298 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 16, 1975

C. v. … It is true that the Board cannot make rates retrospectively, see, *208 e. g., Williams v.

Raymond v. U.S. Capitol Police Board

157 F. Supp. 2d 50 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2001

See Alholm v. … For example, the plaintiff cites Brown v.