Case law

Braniff Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

306 F.2d 739 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 24, 1962

Spiegel v. Public Utilities Commission, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 307 , 226 F.2d 29 , certiorari denied sub nom. Capital Transit Co. v. Spiegel, 1955, 350 U.S. 904 , 76 S.Ct. 182 [ 100 L.Ed. 794 ]; Beaumont, S. L. & W. Ry. v. … . * * *»» *743 Greensboro-High Point Airport Authority v. Civil Aeronautics Bd., 97 U.S.App.D.C. 358, 362 , 231 F.2d 517, 521 . And see Lake Central Airlines v.

Globe, Inc. v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board

471 F. Supp. 1103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 9, 1979

See also, Association of Data Processing, Etc. v. Federal Home Loan Bank Board of Cincinnati, 421 F.Supp. 384, 389-390 (S.D.Ohio, 1976). 5. … See Baker v. Carr, 369 U.S. 186, 204 , 82 S.Ct. 691 , 7 L.Ed.2d 663 (1962).

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corporation v. The Renegotiation Board

482 F.2d 710 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 27, 1973

Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 425 F.2d 578 (1970). … Joint Appendix at 41 in Grumman Aircraft Engineering Corp. v. Renegotiation Board, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 425 F.2d 578 (1970). 25 . See also Freeman v.

Hopkins v. Women's Division, General Board of Global Ministries

238 F. Supp. 2d 174 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 12, 2002

The *176 Church’s General Conference has established general boards, including defendant General Board of Global Ministries (“General Board”), “to carry out assigned functions of program, administration, and/or service.” … While the defendants are correct that an employment action must have “materially adverse consequences affecting the terms, conditions or privileges of employment[,]” Reply at 10 (quoting Brown v.

Franchak v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

932 A.2d 1086 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2007

But, if “the Board has not interpreted a specific portion of the Act, the MPD may be guided by the workers’ compensation decisions of the Department of Employment Services.” Referring to Allen v. … In reviewing an agency decision under the Act, we “defer[ ] to the Board’s reasonable interpretation of the law it is charged with implementing,” Pierce v.

Williams v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

804 A.2d 316 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2002

In Brousseau v. … Lawson v.

Lamar E. Brown v. United States

299 F.2d 468 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 12, 1962

BROWN, Appellant, v. UNITED STATES of America, Appellee. No. 16665. United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit. Argued Jan. 4, 1962.

Guard Publishing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

571 F.3d 53 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 7, 2009

Corp. v. NLRB, 334 F.3d 99, 108 n.4 (D.C. … Guard, 351 N.L.R.B. at 1137 (ALJ Op.); see NLRB v.

Morrison v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

422 A.2d 347 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1980

In Kells v. … Foe v.

Nova Southeastern University v. National Labor Relations Board

807 F.3d 308 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 11, 2015

Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., 494 U.S. 775, 786 (1990); see Beth Israel Hosp. v. NLRB, 437 U.S. 483, 501 (1978). Nor that our review of the Board’s decision and order is deferential. See Int’l Transp. Serv., Inc. v. … The Board applies common law principles of agency, construed liberally, when assigning liability under the NLRA. See Int’l Ass’n of Machinists v.

Mendelson v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

645 A.2d 1090 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 1994

The Board, in its order, summarized the parties’ respective positions as follows: 11. … Glenbrook Road Ass’n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 605 A.2d 22, 31 (D.C.1992) (quoting Levy v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 570 A.2d 739, 746 (D.C.1990)); see also Draude v.

Harvey v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

581 A.2d 757 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 9, 1990

Dankman v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics, 443 A.2d 507 (D.C.1981) (en banc). … See, e.g., Bullock v. Carter, 405 U.S. 134, 143-44 , 92 S.Ct. 849, 856 , 31 L.Ed.2d 92 (1972); Reynolds v. Sims, 377 U.S. 533, 554-55 , 84 S.Ct. 1362, 1377-78 , 12 L.Ed.2d 506 (1964); Yick Wo v.

Mazanderan v. McGranery

490 A.2d 180 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1984

See, e.g., Brown v. Collins, 131 U.S.App.D.C. 68 , 71, 402 F.2d 209, 212 (1968). … Brown v. Collins, supra, 131 U.S.App.D.C. at 72, 402 F.2d at 213 . An independent absolute privilege exists with respect to information furnished to the INS concerning matters within its jurisdiction.

Harold L. Mock v. U.S. Board of Parole

345 F.2d 737 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 8, 1965

He named as defendants the Board of Parole and the Attorney General of the United States. … Zerbst v.

Atkinson v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

597 A.2d 863 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1991

See United States v. Alston, 580 A.2d 587, 590-91 (D.C.1990). 6 . … See Atchison v. District of Columbia, 585 A.2d 150, 154-55 (D.C.1991).

Johnston v. Board of Dental Examiners, D. C.

134 F.2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 18, 1943

Brown, 302 Mass. 523 , 20 N.E. 2d 478 , appeal dismissed 308 U.S. 504 , 60 S.Ct. 96 , 84 L.Ed. 432 ; Goe v. Gifford, 168 Va. 497 , 191 S.E. 783 . Rust v. Missouri Dental Board, 348 Mo. 616 , 155 S.W.2d 80 . Winberry v. … Semler v. Oregon State Board of Dental Examiners, 294 U.S. 608, 612 , 55 S.Ct. 570, 572 , 79 L.Ed. 1086 . 216 Wis. 190 , 256 N.W. 922 . Goe v. Gifford, 168 Va. 497 , 191 S. E. 783, 786 ; Semler v.

Board of Education of DC v. Wilson

290 A.2d 400 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1972

The acceptance form provided that acceptance was “[sjubject to the approval of the Board of Education”. … Coleman v. District of Columbia, 51 U.S.App.D.C. 352 , 279 F. 990 (1922). It was therefore error for the trial court to enter judgment for appellee. Reversed with directions to enter judgment for appellants. 1 .

Tasty Baking Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

254 F.3d 114 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 2001

See NLRB v. … V Finally, TBC alleges that the Board exceeded its remedial power by ordering the company to reinstate Edwina Flannery as a supervisor. We disagree.

Hedgman v. District of Columbia Hackers' License Appeal Board

549 A.2d 720 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 4, 1988

Wheeler v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 395 A.2d 85, 88 (D.C.1978). … District of Columbia Hackers’ License Appeal Board, 366 A.2d 1094 (D.C.1976) (three months); Proctor v. Hackers’ Board, 268 A.2d 267 (D.C.1970) (sixty days).

Daniel v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

329 A.2d 773 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1974

In reviewing such regulations we recognize that “our only task is to determine whether the Board’s interpretation is plainly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations.” Taylor v. … Viator v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 320 A.2d 291 (1974); Palmer v. Board of Zoning Ad *776 justment, D.C.App., 287 A.2d 535 (1972).