Case law

Hammond v. D.C. Record Center

593 F. Supp. 2d 244 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 2009

Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . B. … Brown v. Smith, 828 F.2d 1493, 1494-95 (10th Cir.1987); see Inmates of Occoquan v.

Local Union No. 9735, United Mine Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board

258 F.2d 146 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 1958

The Board, in support of the proposition that a strike to modify a collective bargaining agreement without complying with section 8(d) is an unfair labor practice under section 8(b) (3), cites N.L.R.B. v. … And also Burns v. Thomas Cook & Sons, 317 Mass. 398 , 58 N.E. 2d 150, 152 ; Pick Industries, Inc., v. Gebbard-Berghammer, Inc., 262 Wis. 498 , 56 N.W.2d 97, 99 , 57 N.W.2d 519 ; Levy v.

Goldstein v. Johnson, Secretary of Defense

184 F.2d 342 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 6, 1950

Wales v. Whitney, 114 U.S. 564, 570 , 5 S.Ct. 1050, 1053 , 29 L.Ed. 277 . See, also Brown v. Royall, D. … Hiatt v. Brown, 339 U.S. 103 , 70 S.Ct. 495 ; Johnson v. Zerbst, 304 U.S. 458 , 58 S.Ct. 1019 , 82 L.Ed. 1461 , 146 A.L.R. 357 ; Schita v. King, 8 Cir., 133 F.2d 283 .

Teamsters Local Union No. 515 v. National Labor Relations Board

906 F.2d 719 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 1990

The Board's interpretation of the Act on this point is a permissible one, to which we must defer. See, e.g., NLRB v. … Brief for Board at 43. The Board then cites as supporting authority Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v.

Hopkins v. Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2010

Co. v. Odoi Assocs., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 655, *108 (D.D.C. Jan. 4, 2006) (citing Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1247 (D.C. 1986)). … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Bennett Enters. v. Domino's Pizza, Inc., 45 F.3d 493, 499 (D.C. Cir. 1995)).

Local 919, Retail Clerks International Association, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

416 F.2d 1118 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 26, 1969

unless and until certified by the Board. … NLRB v. Heck’s, Inc., 388 F.2d 668 (4th Cir. 1967).

Greenwood's Transfer & Storage Co. v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

553 A.2d 1246 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1989

Notice of a civil or administrative action by a board or commission given to the counsel of a party is considered notice to the party. See St. Louis v. Alverno College, 744 F.2d 1314 , 1316 n. 4 (7th Cir.1984); Bell v. … Brown, 181 U.S.App.D.C. 226 , 233 & n. 60, 557 F.2d 849 , 856 & n. 60 (1977); Aberson v. Glassman, 70 F.R.D. 683 , 684 & n. 3 (S.D.N.Y.1976); Moore v.

Egan v. United States Agency for International Development

381 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 31, 2004

See FDA v. … As we said in Sendra Corporation v.

Knop v. MacKall

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 6, 2009

Johnson-Brown v. M. St. LLC, 257 F. Supp. 2d 175,177 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing Univ. of S. Ala. v. Am. Tobacco Co., 168 F.3d 405, 411 (11th Cir. 1999)). … Johnson-Brown, 257 F. Supp. 2d at 181 (citing Garcir, 254 F.3d at 588); see Garbie v.

West End Citizen Association v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment Foggy Bottom Grocery, LLC

112 A.3d 900 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2015

.”); Saah v. … Ass’n v.

Viehe v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 2020

“The Board of Trustees of UDC is considered ‘an arm of the D.C. government,’ ” and therefore, the District of Columbia “ ‘is the real party in interest in this litigation.’ ” Howerton v. Ogletree, 466 F. … Yelverton v. Fed. Ins. Co., 831 F.3d 585, 509 (D.C. Cir. 2016); see also Brink v. Cont'l Ins. Co., 787 F.3d 1120, 1127 (D.C.

Radio Officers’ Union, C. T. U.-A. F. of L. v. National Mediation Board

181 F.2d 801 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 10, 1950

The Board is given the power to conduct elections. … Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 1943, 320 U.S. 297 , 64 S.Ct. 95 , 88 L.Ed. 61 . 4 . General Committee of Adjustment of Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. Missouri-Kansas-Texas R. R.

Teamsters Local Union No. 171 v. National Labor Relations Board

863 F.2d 946 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 9, 1988

See Southwest Regional Joint Bd. v. … See NLRB v.

McGary v. Ravindra

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 28, 2020

James v. United States, 48 F. Supp. 3d 58, 63 (D.D.C. 2014). The Court considers Plaintiff’s pro se complaint in light of all filings in the record. Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp., Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 152 (D.C. … Williams v. Bank of New York Mellon, 169 F. Supp. 3d 119, 125 (D.D.C. 2016); see also Brown v. Koenick, No. 96-5296, 1997 WL 150101, at *1 (D.C. Cir.

Division 700, Brotherhood of Locomotive Engineers v. National Railway Labor Arbitration Board No. 282

223 F. Supp. 377 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 1963

The Board promptly instituted hearings. … This Board was created to meet a national emergency of great magnitude.

J.W. Kaempfer v. Philip J. Brown

872 F.2d 496 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 2, 1989

Brown, et al. v. … The Browns filed a "myriad of motions," a majority of which "have simply lacked merit." Kaempfer v. Brown, 684 F.Supp. 319, 324 (D.D.C.1988).

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, AKA Naacp v. N.A.A.C.P. Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc.

753 F.2d 131 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 26, 1985

History suggests that they were jointly responsible for the revolution in civil rights that led to and has been epitomized by the Supreme Court’s decision in Brown v. … In a hostile reaction to Brown v.

Taylor v. Montgomery

413 A.2d 923 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1980

Brown, 536 F.2d 117, 121 (6th Cir. 1976); American Pharmaceutical Association v. Weinberger, 377 F.Supp. 824 (D.D.C.1974), aff’d, 174 U.S.App.D.C. 202 , 530 F.2d 1054 (1976). In Richards v. … District of Columbia Hacker’s License Appeal Board, D.C.App., 384 A.2d 421 (1978), and Bradford v. Hacker’s License Appeal Board, D.C.App., 396 A.2d 988 (1979).

Goozh v. Capitol Souvenir Co., Inc.

462 A.2d 1140 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1983

Brown v. Brown, 343 A.2d 59, 61 (D.C.1975) (per curiam). Indeed, “[t]he law favors the settlement of controversies, and a valid and binding agreement of compromise and settlement will be enforced as any other contract.” … State Highway Board, 130 Vt. 317 , 292 A.2d 814 (1972) (damages in condemnation proceedings to be determined as of a time other than the customary date of taking); Hayes v.

In Re NAVY CHAPLAINCY

850 F. Supp. 2d 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2012

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”