Case law

Schreiber v. Schreiber

139 A.2d 278 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1958

In Underwood v. … Brown v. Brown, 74 App.D.C. 309 , 122 F.2d 219 . 5 . Kimmell v. Kimmell, 84 U.S.App.D.C. 177, 179 , 171 F.2d 340, 342 .

Local 1814, International Longshoremen's Ass'n v. National Labor Relations Board

735 F.2d 1384 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 1984

In NLRB v. … NLRB v. WTVJ, Inc., 268 F.2d 346, 348 (5th Cir. 1959) (“Even absent an exception, the Board is not compelled to act as a mere rubber stamp for its [ALJ].”); see Hedstrom Co. v.

Trans-Lux Midwest Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

53 F. App'x 571 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 26, 2002

This cause was considered on the record compiled before the National Labor Relations Board and on the briefs filed by the parties. … The Board’s conclusion that Trans-Lux did not have a good faith reasonable doubt about the majority status of the Union is based upon substantial evidence in the record.

Aviation Consumer Action Project v. Civil Aeronautics Board

370 F. Supp. 945 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 1972

See McManus v. C.A.B., 310 F.2d 762 (2d Cir. 1962); McManus v. C.A.B., 286 F.2d 414 , cert. denied, 366 U.S. 928 , 81 S.Ct. 1649 , 6 L. Ed.2d 388 , rehearing denied, 366 U.S. 978 , 81 S.Ct. 1918 , 6 L.Ed.2d 1268 (1961). … See Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. Certain Carriers, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 100 , 331 F. 2d 1020 (1964); Lion Mf’g Corp. v. *948 Kennedy, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 307 , 330 F. 2d 833 (1964).

Smalls v. Emanuel

840 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 4, 2012

Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008). … In Brown v.

United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp. v. O'shea

5 F.2d 123 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 6, 1925

Jeremiah O’Shea, as plaintiff, secured a verdict in the lower court against the United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation in the sum of $25,000, as damages for personal injuries sustained by him on January … A.) 294 F. 641 ; Gould Coupler Co. v. Emergency Fleet Corp. (D. C.) 261 F. 716 ; Haines v. Lone Star Shipbuilding Co., 266 Pa. 92 , 110 A. 788 ; Eichberg v. Emergency Fleet Corporation, 51 App. D.

Union Pacific Railroad v. Surface Transportation Board

628 F.3d 597 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 28, 2010

Because the Board’s decision “articulated a rational connection between the facts found and the decision made,” N. Am. Freight Car Ass’n v. STB, 529 F.3d 1166, 1170- 71 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting PPL Mont., LLC v. … Co. v. STB, 609 F.3d 432, 438 (D.C. Cir. 2010); 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Deference is particularly high in rate disputes, where “the Board acts at the zenith of its powers.” Id. (quoting Burlington N. R.R. v.

International Chemical Workers Union v. National Labor Relations Board

395 F.2d 639 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 1968

See, e. g., Makela Welding, Inc. v. NLRB, 387 F.2d 40, 46 (6th Cir. 1967). … But, especially in the light of John Wiley & Sons, Inc. v.

Mid-Mountain Foods, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

269 F.3d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 6, 2001

Hel- ton v. NLRB, 656 F.2d 883 (D.C. … The Board did not explain why an employee's "right to distribute" literature, see NLRB v. Magnavox Co., 415 U.S. 322, 325-26 (1974); Republic Aviation v.

Sowder v. Nolan

125 A.2d 52 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 20, 1956

Young v. Young, 57 App.D.C. 157 , IS F. 2d 807. 2 . Brown v. Shimabukuro, 73 App.D.C. 194 , 118 F.2d 17 . 3 . D.C.Code, § 4-121. 4 . D.C.Code 1951, Supp. IV, Title 1. — Administration, Appendix. … Co. v. Whitton, 13 Wall. 270 , 80 U.S. 270 , 20 L.Ed. 571 . 10 . Collins v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 41 A.2d 515 . 11 . Villaroman v.

In re Gizzarelli

888 A.2d 1154 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2005

XI, § 11(d). 1 We also referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) and directed it to recommend *1155 whether identical, greater, or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline … See, e.g., In re Brown, 797 A.2d 1232 (D.C.2002); In re Cleary, 111 A.2d 786 (D.C.2001). For these reasons, and the lack of anything in the record to indicate that reciprocal discipline is inappropriate, see D.C. Bar R.

Martech Medical Products, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

6 F. App'x 14 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 20, 2001

This appeal was considered on the record from the National Labor Relations Board and on the briefs of the parties. … The Board’s remaining findings are well within its discretion substantially for the reasons given by the Board.

National Cathedral Neighborhood Ass'n v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

753 A.2d 984 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 10, 2000

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.” French v. … In contrast to the separate locations involved in Hilton Hotels Corp. v.

Cook Paint and Varnish Company v. National Labor Relations Board

648 F.2d 712 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 2, 1981

In NLRB v. … Midwest Regional Joint Board v. NLRB, 564 F.2d 434 (D.C.Cir. 1977); Local 433, United Brotherhood of Carpenters v.

Hodge v. United Airlines

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2011

Affairs v. … However, Hodge’s statements about what his union representative told him about Brown are not admissible to prove bias by Brown. See Greer v. Paulson, 505 F.3d 1306, 1315 (D.C. Cir. 2007) (“‘Sheer hearsay’ . . .

United Church Board for World Ministries v. Securities & Exchange Commission

617 F. Supp. 837 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 1985

See Chocolate Manufacturers Association v. Block, 755 F.2d 1098, 1105 (4th Cir.1985). … Plaintiff United Church Board for World Ministries submitted a proposal at the annual meeting of International Business Machines Corporation in the spring of 1984.

Boilermakers Local No. 374, Etc. v. National Labor Relations Board

852 F.2d 1353 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 2, 1988

See, e.g., International Union of Operating Engineers Local 406 v. NLRB, 701 F.2d 504, 510 (5th Cir.1983); cf. Warehouse Union, Local 860 v. … The Board’s remedial discretion under this section is broad, and our review is extremely limited. NLRB v. Rutter-Rex Mfg. Co., 396 U.S. 258, 262-63 , 90 S.Ct. 417, 419-20 , 24 L.Ed.2d 405 (1969).

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

925 A.2d 585 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2007

LEGAL ANALYSIS The Standard of Review Generally, “[o]ur review of the Board’s factual determinations is deferential.” George Washington Univ. v. … See Foggy Bottom Ass’n v.

HRH Servs. LLC v. D.C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd.

201 A.3d 579 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 18, 2019

Better Business Bureau of Washington, D. C., Inc. v. District Unemployment Compensation Board

34 A.2d 614 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1943

In International Reform Federation v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 282 , 131 F.2d 337 , and National Rifle Ass’n v. Young, 77 U.S. … Young v. Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, 63 Ga.App. 130 , 10 S.E.2d 412 ; Maine Unemployment Compensation Commission v. Androscoggin Junior, Inc., 137 Me. 154 , 16 A,2d 252 ; Murphy v. Concordia Pub.