Case law

Murray v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

572 A.2d 1055 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1990

In Draude v. … See Interdonato v.

Felicity's, Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Appeals & Review

851 A.2d 497 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 2004

Dietrich v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 293 A.2d 470, 473 (D.C.1972). … Accordingly, the Board did not err in dismissing the appeal with prejudice. Cf. Lynch v. Meridian Hill Studio Apts., Inc., 491 A.2d 515, 520 (D.C.1985). The Board’s decision is therefore Affirmed. 1 .

Steven P. Fleming v. National Transportation Safety Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 3, 2013

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). “Rule 12(b)(1) presents a threshold challenge to the court’s jurisdiction.” Haase v. Sessions, 835 F.2d 902, 906 (D.C. Cir. 1987); see Bell v. … Tooley v. Napolitano, 586 F.3d 1006, 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Best v. Kelly, 39 F.3d 328, 330 (D.C. Cir. 1994)).

Advanced Micro Devices v. Civil Aeronautics Board

742 F.2d 1520 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 7, 1984

II A carrier introduces a new rate by filing a tariff with the Board. See 49 U.S.C. § 1373 (1976 & Supp. V 1981); id. § 14820(1) (Supp. V 1981). … FPC v.

Exxon Chemical Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

386 F.3d 1160 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 26, 2004

While the Board’s interpretation of the scope of the parties’ contractual agreement is subject to de novo review, Litton Fin. Printing Div. v. … NLRB v. Strong Roofing & Insulating Co., 393 U.S. 357, 361 (1969). The Board quite reasonably found it significant that the parties were in an end-game situation.

Public Employee Relations Board v. Washington Teachers' Union Local 6

556 A.2d 206 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1989

Board of Educ. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional Educ. Assoc., 81 N.J. 582, 592 , 410 A.2d 1131, 1136 (1980), (quoting Biddeford v. Biddeford Teachers Ass’n, 304 A.2d 387, 421 (Me.1973)). … Board of Education, 311 Md. 303 , 534 A.2d 980 (1987); Board of Educ. of Woodstown-Pilesgrove v. Woodstown-Pilesgrove Regional Educ. Ass’n, 81 N.J. 582 , 410 A.2d 1131 (1980). 7 . See generally Agency Proceedings Vol.

Human Development Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board

937 F.2d 657 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 9, 1991

NLRB v. Kemmerer Village, Inc., 907 F.2d 661, 663-64 (7th Cir.1990) (citations omitted). Cf. Hicks v. … Corp. v.

Healthbridge Management, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

672 F. App'x 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 30, 2016

See Hilyer v. Howat Concrete Co., 578 F.2d 422 , 426 n.7 (D.C. Cir. 1978). … See CTS Corp. v. EPA, 759 F.3d 52, 64 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (“[HJiding an argument [in a footnote] and then articulating it in only a conclusory fashion results in forfeiture.”).

Harvey v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

584 A.2d 55 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1991

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

228 F.2d 13 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 1955

Chicago & Southern Air Lines, Inc., v. Waterman S. S. Corp., 1948, 333 U.S. 103, 112-113 , 68 S.Ct. 431, 437 , 92 L.Ed. 568 . Cf. Is-brandtsen Co. v. … In Federal Communications Comm. v.

KLB Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

700 F.3d 551 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 4, 2012

But prompted by a series of Seventh Circuit decisions, the Board changed course. See, e.g., NLRB v. Harvstone Manufacturing Corp., 785 F.2d 570 (7th Cir.1986). … Graphic Communications International Union v. NLRB, 977 F.2d 1168 , 1169 (7th Cir.1992). We addressed the Board’s Nielsen standard in ConAgra, Inc. v. NLRB, 117 F.3d 1435 (D.C.Cir.1997).

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

497 F.2d 608 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 23, 1973

In National Airlines v. CAB, 129 U.S. … In Braniff Airways v.

Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

495 F.2d 145 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 20, 1974

United Air Lines v. CAB, 198 F.2d 100, 106 (7th Cir. 1952). See also Western Air Lines v. CAB, 196 F.2d 933 (9th Cir. 1952); Alaska Airlines v. CAB, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 230 , 285 F.2d 672 (1960). B. … See also Alaska Airlines v. CAB, supra.

Kraft v. Board of Education for District of Columbia

247 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 1965

Counsel for the plaintiff referred to Potomac Electric Power Co. v. … Holzendorf v. Hay, 20 App.D.C. 576, 579 , it was said by Mr.

Unbelievable, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

118 F.3d 795 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 18, 1997

Workers v. NLRB, we reaffirmed the Board's authority to award attorney's fees in similar circumstances. International Union of Elec., Radio and Mach. Workers v. … NLRB v.

Sharp v. Department of Veteran Affairs, Board of Appeals

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2025

Sharp in administrative proceedings before the Board of Veterans’ Appeals. See Compl., at 1, 5, Sharp v. American Legion, 2023-CAB-005322 (D.C. Super. Ct. Aug. 21, 2023). … The second sought $8,500 for the Board’s failure to comply with the subpoena. See Sharp v. Dep’t of Veteran Affs., Bd. of Appeals, No. 24-cv-1345 (D.D.C), Compl., Dkt. 1-1.

Alois Box Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

216 F.3d 69 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 2000

Corp. v. … The Board properly applied its “rule against relitigation,” Pittsburgh Plate Glass Co. v.

Bally's Park Place, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

646 F.3d 929 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 5, 2011

Indeed, “the Board is to be reversed only when the record is ‘so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could fail to find’ to the contrary.” Id. (quoting INS v. … Workers v. NLRB, 215 F.3d 11, 15 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Universal Camera Corp. v.

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

926 A.2d 125 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 2007

Udall v. Tallman, 380 U.S. 1, 16 , 85 S.Ct. 792 , 13 L.Ed.2d 616 (1965). … Because this argument was not raised in the motion for reconsideration before the Relief Board or in his brief on appeal, we consider it waived. See Jewell v. D.C.

Prime Service, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

266 F.3d 1233 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 12, 2001

Ctr. v. NLRB, 871 F.2d 137, 145 (D.C. Cir. 1989). … We have held that before the Board issues a bargaining order on the basis of a union majority of authorization cards--a Gissel order, after NLRB v.