Case law

Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

288 A.2d 666 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1972

Mazza v. Cavicchia, 15 N.J. 498, 516 , 105 A.2d 545, 555 (1954); see Hot Shoppes, Inc. v. Clouser, 231 F.Supp. 825 *670 (D.D.C.1964), aff'd, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 353 , 346 F.2d 834 (1965). See also 1 F. … Hyman v. Coe, 102 F.Supp. 254, 257 (D.D.C.1952), cited in Hot Shoppes, Inc. v. Clouser, 231 F.Supp. 825 (D.D.C. 1964), aff'd 120 U.S.App.D.C. 353 , 346 F.2d 834 (1965). (Emphasis added.)

Railway Labor Executives' Association v. United States Railroad Retirement Board

749 F.2d 856 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1984

Thus, we must defer to the Board’s interpretation of its own governing statutes, provided its interpretation has a reasonable basis. See Itel Corp. v. … See Carducci v. Regan, 714 F.2d 171, 177 (D.C.Cir.1983). 7 . See Kalmich v. Bruno, 553 F.2d 549, 552 (7th Cir.)

Century Air Freight, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

679 F.2d 261 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 21, 1982

679 F.2d 261 220 U.S.App.D.C. 84 Century Air Freight, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board 81-2021 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS District of Columbia Circuit 4/21/82 1 C.A.B.

Club 99, Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

457 A.2d 773 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1982

We cannot say that the Board’s invalid rationale represents a “determination of policy,” S.E.C. v. Chenery, supra, nor that it “infected the entire decision.” Dietrich v. Tarleton, supra. … Hence, we uphold the Board’s two-day suspension as mandated by the Board of Education regulation, based upon findings adequately supported in the record. Silverstone v.

Georgetown Residents Alliance v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

802 A.2d 359 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2002

Ass’n v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 605 A.2d 22, 32 (D.C.1992). … “The applicant has the burden of showing that the proposal complies with the regulation; but once that showing has been made, the Board ordinarily must grant the application.” National Cathedral Neighborhood Ass’n v.

Meat Hwy. Dri., Dockmen, Etc. v. National Labor Relations Board

335 F.2d 709 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 25, 1964

We agree with Chairman McCulloch, joined by Member Brown, in dissenting from the opinion of the Board on this point: 10 'Deliveries to consignees in the Chicago area, regardless of origin, can justifiably be considered to … Drum, 368 U.S. 370 , 382 n. 26, 82 S.Ct. 408, 414 , 7 L.Ed.2d 360 (1962) Member Brown of the Board, who relied on Retail Clerks Union Local 770 v.

George Banta Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

686 F.2d 10 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 15, 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

Credit Union National Ass'n v. National Credit Union Administration Board

573 F. Supp. 586 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 1983

It is also clear that the Board does not dispute that IRPS 82-2 is, in effect, “final” (Answer, 1115). The ruling is therefore “fit” for review. See Fidelity Television, Inc. v. FCC, 502 F.2d 443 (D.C.Cir.1974). B. … Cabais v. Egger, 690 F.2d 234, 237 (D.C. Cir.1983). Instead, the proper analysis was articulated in Gibson Wine Co. v.

Donald Schriver, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

635 F.2d 859 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 20, 1980

Deference to the Board....................................886 V. THE SELF-ENFORCEMENT FEATURE OF THE AGREEMENTS .... 886 VI. … As stated in Brown v.

Brewery Bev. Drivers, Etc. v. National Labor Relations Board

257 F.2d 194 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 1958

We think it sufficient to say that in our view, on the facts of this case, the Board's conclusion appears arbitrary. Cf. Packard Motor Car Co. v. … R.B. 1199 3 The Union lost both of those elections 4 See National Labor Relations Board v. Columbian Enameling & Stamping Co., 1939, 306 U.S. 292 , 59 S.Ct. 501 , 83 L.Ed. 660 ; Zall v.

Una Chapter, Flight Engineers' International Ass'n v. National Mediation Board

294 F.2d 905 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 1961

It should be noted, also, that in Leedom v. Kyne the National Labor Relations Board did not deny that it had contravened its governing statute. See 358 U.S. at page 187 , 79 S.Ct. at page 183 . … The purpose of the Board (and similarly of its designated committee) is to find facts. See Switchmen’s Union v. N. M. B., supra at page 301 of 320 U.S., at page 97 of 64 S.Ct.

MCCORMICK & SCHMICK RESTAURANT CORPORATION v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ALCOHOLIC BEVERAGE CONTROL BOARD

144 A.3d 1153 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2016

Plaza Tenants Ass’n v. … Furthermore, the Board‟s interpretation treats the words “violated” and “violation” inconsistently. Cf. Dupont Circle Citizens Ass’n v.

Dupont Circle Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

403 A.2d 314 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1979

P. v. … See D.C.Code 1973, § 1-1510; Kopff v. District of Columbia ABC Board, supra at 1383.

Laurel Bay Health & Rehabilitation Center v. National Labor Relations Board

666 F.3d 1365 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 20, 2012

Before: HENDERSON, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges. … Ctr., Inc. v. NLRB, 363 F.3d 437, 441 (D.C.

Cornelious v. District of Columbia Employees' Compensation Appeals Board

704 A.2d 853 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1997

Kennedy v. District of Columbia, 654 A.2d 847, 853 (D.C.1994). … United States Dep’t of Labor v.

Jefferson School of Social Science v. Subversive Activities Control Board

331 F.2d 76 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 17, 1963

This is another of the cases referred to in Labor Youth League v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 1 decided April 25, 1963. … Communist Party of the United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 367 U.S. 1 , 81 S.Ct. 1357 , 6 L.Ed.2d 625 (1961). . Southern Pacific Railroad v.

New York New York, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

313 F.3d 585 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 24, 2002

In Republic Aviation Corp. v. … The Eleventh Circuit enforced the Board’s order. Southern Services, Inc. v. NLRB, 954 F.2d 700 , 704 & n. 5 (11th Cir.1992).

Restaurant Corporation of America v. National Labor Relations Board

801 F.2d 1390 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 8, 1986

The Board must carry its “affirmative burden,” Midwest Stock Exchange v. … See, e.g., Midwest Regional Joint Board v.

National Labor Relations Board v. McClatchy Newspapers, Inc.

964 F.2d 1153 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 1992

NLRB v. J.H. … But the Board is comparing apples and oranges. In none of the cases the Board cites did the employer attempt to bargain about the change before enacting it. See NLRB v.

Trump Marina Associates, LLC v. National Labor Relations Board

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

Finally, the Board’s conclusion Trump Marina Associates unlawfully interrogated an employee about his compliance with these rules, in violation of Section 8(a)(1), is not inconsistent with Board precedent and is supported … See Perdue Farms, Inc. v. NLRB, 144 F.3d 830, 834-36 (D.C.Cir.1998). Pursuant to D.C. Circuit Rule 36, this disposition will not be published.