Case law

Adams v. Department of Mental Health of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 27, 2011

District of Columbia, 980 A.2d 1217, 1223 (D.C. 2009) (explaining that “[t]he jurisdiction of the court and OHR are mutually exclusive in the first instance” (quoting Brown v. … Id. at 860 (quoting Brown v. Capitol Hill Club, 425 A.2d 1309, 1312 (1981)).

Alan McSurely and Margaret McSurely v. John J. McClellan

521 F.2d 1024 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 28, 1975

Tenney v. … Cohen v. Beneficial Loan Corp., 337 U.S. 541, 546 , 69 S.Ct. 1221 , 93 L.Ed. 1528 (1949). . Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 308 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962). . McSurely v.

NCR Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

840 F.3d 838 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 2016

NLRB v. A.J. Tower Co., 329 U.S. 324, 330 (1946); see Durham School Servs., LP v. NLRB, 821 F.3d 52, 58 (D.C. Cir. 2016); Serv. Corp. Int’l v. NLRB, 495 F.3d 681, 684 (D.C. Cir. 2007). … of Ill. v.

Brown v. Does

207 A.3d 176 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 2019

Drug Plastics & Glass Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

44 F.3d 1017 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 27, 1995

Drug Plastics & Glass Co. v. NLRB, 30 F.3d 169 (D.C.Cir.1994). … (emphasis added) (quoting National Licorice Co. v. NLRB, 309 U.S. 350, 369 , 60 S.Ct. 569, 579 , 84 L.Ed. 799 (1940)). Thus, as we noted in G.W. Galloway Co. v.

Thornton v. Wormuth

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 3, 2025

Cir. 1995) (explaining “that when a Board reviews the merits of a former servicemember’s application under § 1552(a)(1), the decision is subject to judicial review” (citing Chappell v. … The scope of review is narrow, as this Court “review[s] a decision of a military corrections board under an ‘unusually deferential application of the “arbitrary and capricious” standard.’” Roberts v.

Lee Lumber & Building Material Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board

310 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 2002

.”); Cobb Mechanical Contractors, Inc. v. … Ill For the foregoing reasons, we deny Lee Lumber’s petition for review and grant the Board’s cross-application for enforcement. . See Sullivan Indus, v. NLRB, 957 F.2d 890 (D.C.Cir.1992); Williams Enters., Inc. v.

Brown v. Proctor

182 A.3d 715 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2018

Brown v. Does

160 A.3d 1174 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2017

Debose v. Brown

159 A.3d 1221 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2017

Markel v. Del Toro

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 27, 2025

citing Chappell v. … The scope ofreview is narrow, as this Court "review[s] a decision ofa military corrections board under an 'unusually deferential application of the "arbitrary and capricious" standard."' Roberts v.

Mehrbach v. Citibank, N.A.

316 F. Supp. 3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 11, 2018

A court considering a pro se plaintiff's complaint should look to "all filings, including filings responsive to a motion to dismiss," Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc. , 789 F.3d 146 , 152 (D.C. … Murthy v. N.

United States v. Guardino

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 2025

See Brown v. Amtrak Corp., No. 03-7003, 2003 WL 22433755, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 27, 2023) (“A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final judgment on the merits which bars further litigation between the same parties.” … See also Thorp v. District of Columbia, 142 F. Supp. 3d 132, 145 (D.D.C. 2015) (noting that dismissal with prejudice “reflect[s] on the merits of the underlying action” (quoting Brown v.

Hawkins v. Holder

597 F. Supp. 2d 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 8, 2009

In support of this theory, Hawkins relies on a series of cases from the Merit Systems Protection Board (the “Board”) and the Federal Circuit. See Pl.’s Cross-Mot. at 14-16; Pl.’s Opp’n at 39. … Brown v. Small, 437 F.Supp.2d 125 , 130 n. 7 (D.D.C. 2006) (emphasis in original) (citing Randle v. LaSalle Telecomms., Inc., 876 F.2d 563, 569 (7th Cir.1989)).

United States v. Sidow

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2025

See Brown v. Amtrak Corp., No. 03-7003, 2003 WL 22433755, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 27, 2023) (“A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final judgment on the merits which bars further litigation between the same parties.” … See also Thorp v. District of Columbia, 142 F. Supp. 3d 132, 145 (D.D.C. 2015) (noting that dismissal with prejudice “reflect[s] on the merits of the underlying action” (quoting Brown v.

United States v. Dahlquist

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2025

See Brown v. Amtrak Corp., No. 03-7003, 2003 WL 22433755, at *1 (D.C. Cir. Oct. 27, 2023) (“A dismissal ‘with prejudice’ is a final judgment on the merits which bars further litigation between the same parties.” … Supp. 3d 132, 145 (D.D.C. 2015) (noting that dismissal with prejudice “reflect[s] on the merits of the underlying action” (quoting Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1245 (D.C. Cir. 1986), and citing Kenley v.

Brown v. Brown

382 A.2d 1038 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 14, 1978

Ford v. United States

533 A.2d 617 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1987

The premise of our adversarial system is that appellate courts do not sit as self-directed boards of legal inquiry and research, but essentially as arbiters of legal questions presented and argued by the parties before them … See Harris v.

University of Chicago Medical Center v. Burwell

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2024

Gentiva Health Servs., Inc. v. Becerra, 31 F.4th 766, 775 (D.C. Cir. 2022) (affording “considerable deference” to the Board’s decisions (quoting Marymount Hosp., Inc. v. Shalala, 19 F.3d 658, 661 (D.C. … Hosp. v. Leavitt, 539 F.

Brown v. Brown

121 F.2d 101 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 20, 1941

Moreover, in Lane v. … It read as follows: “Comes now the appellant, Mary Estelle Brown, through her attorney, and moves this Honorable Court to issue upon the appellee, George Brown, a rule to show cause, if any he has, why he should not be adjudged