Case law

Brown v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2017

Brown, 115 F. Supp. 3d at 65 n.2 (citing Defs.’ Suppl. Filing, Simms v. Dist. of Columbia, No. 12–cv–00701, at *2 (D.D.C. June 22, 2012)). … See, e.g., Brown v. Pro Football, Inc., 146 F.R.D. 1, 5 (D.D.C. 1992) (noting that plaintiffs relied on a “simple, common formula” to measure damages for each class member); see also Windham v. Am.

Bartel v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

808 A.2d 1240 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2002

Bartel, a registered Independent voter, submitted unsigned nominating petition forms to the respondent District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics and requested that the Board place his name on the ballot as an Independent … Carr Mgm’t, Inc. v. National Delicatessen, Inc., 397 A.2d 914, 915 (D.C.1979). Mr. Bartel is correct that D.C.Code § l-1001.08(j)(1)(b) (2001) does not include “U.S.

Donnelly v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

452 A.2d 364 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 1982

Spevak v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, D.C.App., 407 A.2d 549 , 554 n. 9 (1979). … Northeast Liquors, Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, D.C.App., 302 A.2d 222 , 226 n. 12 (1973).

Riffin v. Surface Transportation Board

402 F. App'x 532 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 30, 2010

Petitioner has not demonstrated that the Board’s decision denying his petition for a declaratory order is arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law. See BNSF Railway Co. v. … The Board properly concluded that petitioner is not a “rail carrier,” because he has not shown that he has the ability to provide rail service on the Allegany Line. See Nevada v.

Chiapella v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

954 A.2d 996 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2008

See Sisson v. D.C. … See Carroll v.

Leach v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters' Retirement & Relief Board

965 A.2d 849 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 2009

In Arellano v. … See Croskey v.

Civil Aeronautics Board v. American Air Transport, Inc.

201 F.2d 189 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 20, 1952

David S. Komjathy v. National Transportation Safety Board

832 F.2d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 13, 1987

. § 1429(a) (1982), Komjathy appealed the order to the National Transportation Safety Board (“NTSB” or “Board”), appellee here. … See, e.g., Go Leasing, Inc. v. NTSB, 800 F.2d 1514, 1519-21 (9th Cir.1986); Pangbum v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 311 F.2d 349, 354-56 (1st Cir.1962).

Matson Terminals, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

114 F.3d 300 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 10, 1997

In any event, we must uphold the finding of unlawful motive by the Board so long as there is substantial evidence in the record to support it. 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e); see Passaic Daily News v. … As we noted above, the Board’s *304 factual findings, including motive, are conclusive as supported by substantial evidence on the record as a whole. 29 U.S.C. § 160 (e). Universal Camera v.

Ridgewell's, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

38 F. App'x 29 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 17, 2002

See CitiSteel USA, Inc. v. … Nor is the Board’s separate finding that the petitioner was not a “perfectly clear” successor ab initio —and was therefore “free to set initial terms on which it w[ould] hire the employees of [its] predecessor,” NLRB v.

Hurt v. D.C. Parole Board

204 F. App'x 903 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 8, 2006

Kentucky v. Graham, 473 U.S. 159, 166 , 105 S.Ct. 3099 , 87 L.Ed.2d 114 (1985). Such a claim must allege that the agency’s policy or custom played a role in the violation of federal law. See Monell v. Department of Soc. … Parole Board’s policy or custom.

Lake Central Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

239 F.2d 46 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 8, 1956

239 F.2d 46 LAKE CENTRAL AIRLINES, Inc., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent, American Airlines, Inc., Intervenor, North Central Airlines, Inc., Intervenor, City of Kalamazoo, Michigan, Intervenor. … Co. v.

Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

865 F.3d 630 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 2017

Englehart, Supervisory Attorney.  2 Before: BROWN, Circuit Judge, and SENTELLE and RANDOLPH, Senior Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by BROWN, Circuit Judge. … Co. v. NLRB, 857 F.3d 877, 881–82 (D.C. Cir. 2017). The Board totally ignores facts in the record and misconstrues the findings of the ALJ. See Reno Hilton Resorts v. NLRB, 196 F.3d 1275, 1282 (D.C.

Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

385 F.2d 648 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 12, 1967

Meanwhile, in Delta Air Lines v. … Board of Pub. Util. Comm’rs v. New York Tel. Co., 271 U.S. 23 , 46 S.Ct. 363 , 70 L.Ed. 808 (1926). 30 . City of Detroit v. FPC, 97 U.S.App. D.C. 260, 230 F.2d 810 (1955), cert. denied sub nom. Panhandle E.

Kuri Bros. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

891 A.2d 241 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2006

LCP, Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Bev. … Park Citizens Ass’n v. Burka, 400 A.2d 737, 740 (D.C.1979) (quoting Russell v. Todd, 309 U.S. 280, 287 , 60 S.Ct. 527 , 84 L.Ed. 754 (1940)).

Sherven v. Privacy and Civil Liberties Oversight Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 31, 2023

) Case No. 22-cv-2412 (APM) PRIVACY AND CIVIL LIBERTIES ) OVERSIGHT BOARD, ) ) Defendant. ) _________________ … Wilbur v. Cent. Intel. Agency, 355 F.3d 675, 676 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, Plaintiff received a final determination on his FOIA request on August 8, 2022. Compl., ECF No. 1, at 1.

John E. Brown v. I.T.T./Continental Baking Company And Insurance Company Of North America

921 F.2d 289 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 11, 1990

Brown appealed to the Board. 7 The Board did not address the question of whether Brown's 1983 claim for the 1981 accident was time-barred. J.A. 177. … Sec. 921 (c), renders court "unable to decide an issue not reached by the Board"); Todd Shipyards Corp. v.

Mueller Brass Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

180 F.2d 402 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 13, 1950

of case. 8 N.L.R.B. v. … Co. v. N. L. R. B., 7 Cir., 1947, 162 F.2d 435, 439 ; Marlin-Roekwell Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 2 Cir., 1941, 116 F.2d 586, 587 ; Bussmann Mfg. Co. v. N. L. R.

Continental Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

522 F.2d 107 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 7, 1974

Moss v. CAB, 139 U.S.App.D.C. 150 , 430 F.2d 891 (1970), and the Board does not appear to be engaging in the “reasoned decision making” required of it, see Greater Boston Television Corp. v. … Hence, this case is similar to Moss v.

Foley v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

358 A.2d 305 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 1976

See, Smith v. Murphy, D.C.App., 294 A.2d 357 (1972); Hadnott v. Laird, supra; Camp v. Herzog, supra; Doe v. Martin, 404 F.Supp. 753, 763 (D.D.C.1975). … See McKart v. United States, supra, 395 U.S. at 195 , 89 S. Ct. 1657 ; Camp v. Herzog, supra, 88 U.S. App.D.C. at 374, 190 F.2d at 606 .