Case law

In Re Bach

966 A.2d 350 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2009

Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. … See, e.g., Brown v. Brown, 524 A.2d 1184, 1188 (1987) ("`bursting bubble' presumption . . . has no evidentiary weight once rebutted by some evidence to the contrary").

Faic Securities, Inc. v. United States

768 F.2d 352 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 30, 1985

Brief for Appellant Bank Board at 52. … In Craig v.

Central Bank v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System of U. S

593 F.2d 1370 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 2, 1979

593 F.2d 1370 193 U.S.App.D.C. 216 Central Bank v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System of U. S. No. 77-1937 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 2/2/79 1 Fed. Res. Sys. AFFIRMED

Central Bank v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System of U. S

589 F.2d 1115 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 21, 1978

589 F.2d 1115 191 U.S.App.D.C. 212 Central Bank v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System of U. S. No. 77-1937 United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit 11/21/78 1 Fed. Res. Sys. 2 REMANDED *

Golding-Alleyne v. Department of Employment Services

980 A.2d 1209 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2009

See Gage v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 738 A.2d 1219, 1222 (D.C.1999) (finding “no error in the Board’s determination that petitioners failed to satisfy their burden of proof’). … The judgment of the Compensation Review Board is hereby Affirmed. 1 .

White v. Hyman

647 A.2d 1175 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1994

Ass’n v. … In Olim v.

Johnson v. United States

398 A.2d 354 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1979

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 496 , 73 S.Ct. 397, 441 , 97 L.Ed. 469 (1953). … Pollock v. Brown, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 50 (1978); Moore v. Moore, D.C.App., 391 A.2d 762, 770-72 (1978); Farrell v. United States, D.C.App., 391 A.2d 755 (1978).

Satterlee v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

195 F. Supp. 3d 327 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 2016

See Kowal, 16 F.3d at 1276; see also Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).

Pruitthealth-Virginia Park, LLC v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

888 F.3d 1285 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 2018

See NLRB v. Furnas Elec. … Univ. v. NLRB, 807 F.3d 308, 313 (D.C.

Bartlett v. Overslaugh

169 F. Supp. 3d 99 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 2016

See id.; see also Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). … Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984).

Miller v. Mayor of Washington

2 Hay. & Haz. 241 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 16, 1857

the Board of Aldermen for said office, to which nomination the Board refused to consent, by which I understand, and it is admitted in the argument of the case agreed, he was rejected by the Board of Aldermen; that from time … An officer rejected by the Board of Aldermen on the Mayor’s nomination cannot, I think, be re-appointed by the Mayor in the recess of the same Board.

KS Condo v. Fairfax Village Condominium VII

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2023

Brown v. Raines, 293 A.3d 1116, 1119 (D.C. 2023). … Blair v.

Power Incorporated v. National Labor Relations Board, United Mine Workers of America, International Union, Intervenor

40 F.3d 409 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1995

Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 488 , 71 S.Ct. 456, 464-65 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951). The record in this case supports the Board’s findings. … NLRB v.

Broderick v. Catholic University of America

365 F. Supp. 147 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 1973

.); or granting of tax exemptions, Browns v. Mitchell, 409 F.2d 593 (10th Cir.). 443 F.2d at 123 . Thus, plaintiffs’ allegations of “governmental action” must be rejected. … See Goodman v. Dicker, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 353 , 169 F.2d 684 (1948), of. Dickerson v. Colgrove, 100 U.S. 578, 580 , 25 L.Ed. 618 (1879). 24 .

Press Communications LLC v. Federal Communications Commission

875 F.3d 1117 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 21, 2017

In Chiquita Brands International, Inc. v. SEC, for example, we found ‘. … lapses like the Board of Education’s less likely to recur.

International Ladies' Garment Workers' Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Bernhard-Altmann Texas Corporation

280 F.2d 616 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 19, 1960

280 F.2d 616 INTERNATIONAL LADIES' GARMENT WORKERS' UNION, AFL-CIO, Petitioner v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner v. BERNHARD-ALTMANN TEXAS CORPORATION, Respondent. … B. v.

Ollie M. Darby and William Gonzales v. Internal Revenue Service and Merit Systems Protection Board

672 F.2d 192 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 5, 1982

In Drew v. … DA043009003 (Feb. 11, 1981); Wells v.

Bankers Mutual Insurance v. Friedlander

262 A.2d 606 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1970

1 and while he was standing in front of the board an electrical explosion and fire occurred within the panel board. … The board was described by one witness as a motor starter panel board with switch and fuse units. . Washington Loan & Trust Co. v. Hickey, 78 U.S.App.D.C. 59 , 137 F.2d 677 (1943) ; Uberti v.

Local Union 1395, International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. National Labor Relations Board

797 F.2d 1027 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 8, 1986

In reviewing the Board’s orders, courts customarily defer to the Board’s exercise of its “special function of applying the general provisions of the Act to the complexities of industrial life.” NLRB v. … In NLRB v.

International Longshoremen's and Warehousemen's Union v. National Labor Relations Board, Sea-Land Service, Inc., Intervenor

884 F.2d 1407 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 5, 1989

Contractors Inc. v. … Section 10(k) requires that the Board resolve all jurisdictional disputes in favor of one or the other parties. See NLRB v.