Case law

Bennett v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

37 F.2d 811 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1930

It also denied •that either the Fleet Corporation or the Shipping Board held any fund for the benefit of the plaintiffs (appellants). … On direct examination this witness testified that “in several cases wages were jumped at Newburgh when the officials of Newburgh Shipyards, Inc., did not want to have them jumped; that the board called the Maey Board made

Marjorie Webster Junior College, Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

309 A.2d 314 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 24, 1973

ABC Board, D.C.App., 302 A.2d 235 (1973), and whether the conclusions of the Board flow rationally from these findings, Stewart v. BZA, D.C.App., 305 A.2d 516 (1973). … Oliva, 350 Mass. 31 , 213 N.E.2d 230 (1965) ; Application of Good Fellowship Ambulance Club, 406 Pa. 465 , 178 A.2d 578 (1962) ; Monforte v. Zoning Board of Review, 93 R.I. 447 , 176 A.2d 726 (1962) ; McCloud v.

National Air Carrier Association, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

600 F.2d 280 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 13, 1979

600 F.2d 280 194 U.S.App.D.C. 400 National Air Carrier Association, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board No. 77-2122, 78-1962 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 6/13/79 1 C.A.B. 2 AFFIRMED *

Levensaler v. United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corp.

1 F.2d 1021 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 3, 1924

This case was here on a former appeal (United States Shipping Board Emergency Fleet Corporation v. Levensaler et al., 290 F 297, 53 App. D.

United States ex rel. Denholm & McKay Co. v. United States Board of Tax Appeals

125 F.2d 557 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 9, 1942

Lang Body Co. v. Board of Tax Appeals, 58 App.D.C. 237 , 29 F.2d 437 ; Smith v. Higgins (In re John Thomas Smith), 2 Cir., 102 F. 2d 456 , 4 Prentice-Hall Tax Sendee (1940) 62,757; Ex parte Jones, 160 S. … Compare, United States Board of Tax Appeals v. United States ex rel. McCandless, 58 App.D.C. 222 , 26 F.2d 1000 (prayer for mandamus).

Saint-Gobain Industrial Ceramics, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

310 F.3d 778 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 26, 2002

eligibility, NLRB v. … Agency San Francisco v. NLRB, 163 F.3d 1369 , 1373 & n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1999). Our review of the Board’s unfair labor practice finding is for substantial evidence in the record as a whole. See Universal Camera Corp. v.

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

334 F.2d 581 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 7, 1964

Involved is the validity of an order of the National Labor Relations Board entered after usual administrative proceedings within the agency. … We think the evidence did not require the Board to uphold the Union’s claim in this respect.

Ex-Cell-O Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

449 F.2d 1058 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 1971

In this case the Board’s legal error resulted in no prejudice to the Union. Braniff Airways, Inc. v. CAB, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 399, 411-412 , 379 F.2d 453, 465-466 (1967). … Compare NLRB v.

Smith v. United States

454 A.2d 822 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1983

Gibson v. … Smith v. United States, supra at 1370. Again, we decline to second guess such tactical decisions. Harris v. United States, D.C.App., 441 A.2d 268, 272 (1982); Oesby v.

Neighbors on Upton Street v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

697 A.2d 3 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1997

District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 605 A.2d 22, 80 (D.C.1992) (citation omitted); accord, e.g., Downtown Cluster of Congregations v. … Kopff v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 381 A.2d 1372, 1384 (D.C.1977) (emphasis in original).

Consumers Union of the U.S., Inc. v. Federal Reserve Board

938 F.2d 266 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 1991

Pursuant to that end, the Board is entitled to wide and respectful deference in its implementation of the statute. See Anderson Bros. Ford v. … And, of course, with respect to the interpretation of statutory ambiguities, the Board is entitled to deference under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.

Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 425, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen, Intervenor. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. National Labor Relations Board, Office and Professional Employees International Union, Local 425, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

419 F.2d 314 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 19, 1969

assertion of its jurisdiction even assuming applicability of the narrower standard suggested by Member Brown. … Indeed the Board's panel happened to consist of Chairman McCulloch and Members Brown and Zagoria, and there was no dissent. This controversy was not clearly a mere question of contract interpretation.

Association for the Benefit of Non-Contract Employees v. National Mediation Board

218 F. Supp. 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 1963

The Board has also cited to the Court certain language from the recent case of WES Chapter, Flight Eng’rs’ Ass’n v. … Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 303 , 64 S.Ct. 95, 98 , 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943).

United States v. Spinner

109 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 14, 2000

fact or to have taken steps to learn of Detective Brown’s similar misrepresentations in the past is a violation of either Brady v. … Judge Hogan concluded that even if the jury had never heard about Detective Brown’s Board certification as a pharmacist, “it is likely that they would still have credited his testimony since it was supported by twenty-five

United Steelworkers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

393 F.2d 661 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 19, 1968

II The Board’s finding that the company’s no-solicitation rules unlawfully infringed upon employees’ rights is obviously correct. Republic Aviation Corp. v. N. L. R. … B. v. Allen Manufacturing Co., 6 Cir., 364 F.2d 814, 816 (1966); Anchor Manufacturing Co. v. N. L. R. B., 5 Cir., 300 F.2d 301, 303 (1962). We too find their use unobjectionable and within the competence of the Board.

Capital Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board

171 F.2d 339 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 6, 1948

In view of the finality of the rates, which stood unchallenged for more than three years, the Board was without power to revise them retroactively. Transcontinental & Western Air, Inc. v. … Federal Power Commission v. National Gas Pipeline Co., 1942, 315 U.S. 575, 590 , 62 S.Ct. 736 , 86 L.Ed. 1037 , and cases cited.

Veterans of the Abraham Lincoln Brigade v. Subversive Activities Control Board

331 F.2d 64 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 1964

Subversive Activities Control Board, decided April 25, 1963, 3 and in No. 13260, National Council of American-Soviet Friendship v. … With this proviso the order of the Board is Affirmed. . 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). . Tit.

Retail, Wholesale & Department Stoke Union v. National Labor Relations Board

466 F.2d 380 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 28, 1972

See NLRB v. Local Union No. 1229, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers, 346 U.S. 464, 476 , 74 S.Ct. 172 , 98 L.Ed. 195 (1953). . NLRB v. Brown & Root, Inc., 311 F.2d 447, 451 (8th Cir. 1963). . … Brown & Root, 132 NLRB 486 (1961), enforced 311 F.2d 447 (8th Cir. 3963) ; American Flint Glass Workers’ Union v.

International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Honorable Harold Brown, Secretary of Defense

698 F.2d 536 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 21, 1983

See International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots v. Hon. Harold Brown, et al, No. 79-1074 (D.D.C. Aug. 6, 1981), reprinted in J.A. at 114 [hereinafter cited as District Court Opinion]. … See Blaha v.

Board of Pharmacy of the District of Columbia v. Feldman

279 F.2d 821 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 3, 1960

Board of Pharmacy, in which the Board had declined to renew respondent’s license as a druggist, and remanded the case to the Board for further proceedings not inconsistent with the court’s opinion. Feldman v. … Board of Pharmacy of the District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App.1960, 160 A.2d 100 . The Board now petitions this court for the allowance of an appeal from the court’s decision.