Case law

Greater Peoria Airport Authority v. Civil Aeronautics Board

569 F.2d 159 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1977

569 F.2d 159 186 U.S.App.D.C. 328 Greater Peoria Airport Authority v. Civil Aeronautics Board No. 76-2055 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 12/5/77 1 C.A.B. AFFIRMED

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

569 F.2d 640 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 28, 1977

Because the Civil Aeronautics Board irrationally limited its diversification inquiry and resulting regulatory measures to the three petitioner airlines, it must, if it persists in this regulatory objective, initiate a new … It is my understanding that in the new proceeding the issue of the existence, source, and scope of the Board’s authority to impose a regulatory program of the kind here involved continues to remain open.

Aviation Consumer Action Project v. Civil Aeronautics Board

505 F.2d 475 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 17, 1974

505 F.2d 475 164 U.S.App.D.C. 368 Aviation Consumer Action Project v. Civil Aeronautics Board 73-1926 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Columbia Circuit 9/17/74 1 D.C.D.C. REVERSED AND REMANDED

Bundy v. United States

422 A.2d 765 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1980

Smith observed appellant sitting on a brown paper bag at the same bus stop near Gino’s Restaurant. Once again, appellant failed to board several buses that passed. … See Brown v. United States, D.C.App., 387 A.2d 728 (1978); Watts v. United States, D.C.App., 362 A.2d 706 (1976) (en banc).

Board of County Commissioners of Weld County, CO v. EPA

72 F.4th 284 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 30, 2023

Landgraf v. USI Film Prods., 511 U.S. 244, 280 (1994). In other words, “retroactive rules alter the past legal consequences of past actions.” Arkema, Inc. v. EPA, 618 F.3d 1, 7 (D.C. Cir. 2010) (quoting Bowen v. … Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979); see also California v. Texas, 141 S.

Land Air Delivery, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

862 F.2d 354 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 2, 1988

American Cyanamid v. … The Supreme Court has instructed that in framing its complaint, the Board is not limited to specific matters alleged in the charge, NLRB v.

Texas International Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

473 F.2d 1150 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 11, 1972

the Board’s discretion. … Of the numerous cases so holding, I select as typical the following: Rankin v. State of Florida, 418 F.2d 482 (5th Cir. 1969), cert. denied 397 U.S. 1039 , 90 S.Ct. 1358 , 25 L.Ed.2d 650 (1970); Flynn v.

United Steel Workers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Fibreboard Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

436 F.2d 908 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 1971

-C.I.O. v. N. L. R. B., 116 U.S.App.D.C. 198 , 322 F.2d 411 (1963), affirmed, sub nom. Fibreboard Paper Products Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 379 U.S. 203 , 85 S.Ct. 398 , 13 L.Ed.2d 233 (1964). … While on some of the issues we may well have found differently, “[a]s with the Board’s other remedies, the power to order back pay ‘is for the Board to wield, not for the courts.’ NLRB v.

Convention Center Referendum Committee v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

441 A.2d 889 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1981

California Cartage Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

822 F.2d 1203 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 14, 1987

As such, CalCart challenges the Board where perhaps it is strongest before the Court of Appeals; we must affirm the Board if there is substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding, NLRB v. … See, e.g., Production Workers, Local 707 v. NLRB, 793 F.2d 323 , 333 (D.C.Cir.1986); Carpet, Linoleum, Local 419 v. NLRB, 429 F.2d 747 , 752 (D.C.Cir.1970); Local No. 24, IBT v. NLRB, 266 F.2d 675, 680 (D.C. Cir.1959).

Transportation Trades Department, Afl-Cio v. National Mediation Board

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2021

v. Azar, 315 F. Supp. 3d 322, 329 (D.D.C. 2018) (citing Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 561 (1992)). The Court “is not limited to the allegations of the complaint,” Hohri v. … Ass’n v. Azar, 967 F.3d at 828.

Plummer v. District of Columbia Board of Funeral Directors

730 A.2d 159 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 20, 1999

Cohen v. Rental Housing Comm’n, 496 A.2d 603, 605 (D.C.1985). … This court “will not set aside any finding, conclusion or action of the Board unless it is found to be ... unsupported by substantial evidence in the record.” Vann v.

West Texas Utilities Co., Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

206 F.2d 442 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 19, 1953

Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, 7 Cir., 1944, 143 F.2d 761, 763 . And see National Labor Relations Board v. … National Labor Relations Board v. Trojan Powder Co., 3 Cir., 1943, 135 F.2d 337, 340 . 15 .

Mike-Sell's Potato Chip Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

807 F.3d 318 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 11, 2015

Id. at 683-84; see also Hawaii Meat Company v. … That sounds like a substantive evaluation of the parties’ positions which – it is black letter law – the Board may not do. See NLRB v. American National Insurance Co., 343 U.S. 395, 404 (1952).

Teamsters Local Union No. 509 v. National Labor Relations Board

803 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 21, 2015

Lummus Co. v. NLRB, 339 F.2d 728, 734 (D.C. Cir. 1964); see also Radio Officers’ Union v. … We must uphold the judgment of the Board unless, upon reviewing the record as a whole, we conclude that the Board’s findings are not supported by substantial evidence . . . .” Wayneview Care Ctr. v.

Brown v. Government of the District of Columbia

111 F. App'x 616 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 2004

R.Civ.P. 8(a)(1); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C.Cir.2004). Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.

D. T. Corp. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

407 A.2d 707 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 6, 1979

Sherman v. Commission on Licensure to Practice the Healing Art, D.C.App., 407 A.2d 595 (1979). See SEC v. Chenery Corp., 318 U.S. 80 , 63 S.Ct. 454 , 87 L.Ed. 626 (1943); Jameson’s Liquors, Inc. v. … District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, D.C.App., 384 A.2d 412 (1978); Dietrich v. Tarleton, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 47 , 473 F.2d 177 (1972).

In re Brown

694 A.2d 886 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 22, 1997

PER CURIAM: In this reciprocal discipline proceeding, the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that respondent be suspended for sixty days and required to show fitness before he is allowed to return to the practice … Brown, shall be suspended from the practice of law for sixty days to begin when he has filed the affidavit required by D.C-App. R. XI, § 14(g).

In Re Brown

10 A.3d 619 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2010

ORDER PER CURIAM On consideration of this court’s April 14, 2010, order referring Bar Counsel’s request to revoke respondent’s probation to the Board on Professional Responsibility for consideration by a Hearing Committee … report and recommendation of the Ad Hoc Hearing Committee, the statement of Bar Counsel, and the entire record, it is ORDERED that Bar Counsel’s motion to revoke probation is granted and the probation imposed on Timothy Brown

George Banta Co. v. National Labor Relations Board

686 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 13, 1982

Banta posits the legality of its PRS on the Board decisions in Bio-Science Laboratories, 209 NLRB 796 (1974), and Brown and Root, Inc., 132 NLRB 486 (1961). These cases are inapposite. … Although Brown and Root states that the Board does not require the “displacement” of “old employees” in order to make room for returning unfair labor practice strikers, 132 NLRB at 514 (Initial Decision), nothing in the opinion