Case law

MARK E. LEWIS v. UNITED STATES.

138 A.3d 1188 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 12, 2016

Brown and “get [her] f***ed up.” We review this question de novo. Sutton v. United States, 988 A.2d 478, 482 (D.C. 2010). Under D.C. … Brown is sufficient to prove appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. See Graham v.

Brotherhood of Railway and Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees v. National Mediation Board

374 F.2d 269 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 16, 1966

It is well settled that the jurisdiction of the courts in employee representation proceedings before the National Mediation Board is extremely limited. Switchmen’s Union of North America v. … National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297 , 64 S.Ct. 95 , 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943); Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express and Station Employees v.

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, George A. Angle, D/B/A Kansas Refined Helium Company, Intervenor. George A. Angle, D/B/A Kansas Refined Helium Company v. National Labor Relations Board

445 F.2d 237 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 27, 1971

National Labor Relations Board, for respondent. Messrs. Arnold Ordman, General Counsel, Dominick L. Manoli, Associate General Counsel, Marcel Mallet-Prevost, Asst. General Counsel, Allison W. Brown, Jr., and Harold B. … The Board, however, had studiously avoided holding one way or the other on the question. When, in Packard Motor Car Co. v.

M. A. P. v. Ryan

285 A.2d 310 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1971

The decision of the United States Court of Appeals in Brown v. … It may be noted that Judge Tamm, one of the two judges who participated in Cooley v. Stone, also participated in Brown v.

Colonel Roland F. Cinciarelli v. The Honorable Jimmy Carter, President of the United States

662 F.2d 73 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 21, 1981

Brunson, 465 F.2d 144, 147 (5th Cir. 1972); Johnson v. Chafee, 469 F.2d 1216, 1219 (9th Cir. 1972); Chalfant v. Laird, 420 F.2d 945, 946 (9th Cir. 1969). Cf. Quinn v. Brown, 561 F.2d 795 , 799 & n.4 (9th Cir. 1977). … For example, in Johnson v.

Kodiak Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Wien Consolidated Airlines, Inc., Western Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors

447 F.2d 341 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 19, 1971

The Board seems to rely most heavily on Power Reactor Development Co. v. Int. … The Board quotes some language from American Airlines, Inc. v.

Moorehead v. District of Columbia

747 A.2d 138 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2000

Wanzer v. … United States v.

Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers Local Union No. 6-418 v. National Labor Relations Board

694 F.2d 1289 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 30, 1982

See Truck Drivers & Helpers Local No. 728 v. … See NLRB v.

Local 636 of the United Association of Journeymen and Apprentices of the Plumbing and Pipe Fitting Industry of the United States and Canada, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, National Labor Relations Board v. Detroit Association of Plumbing Contractors

287 F.2d 354 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 22, 1961

Brown, Jr., Atty., National Labor Relations Board, were on the brief, for respondent in No. 15,665 and petitioner in No. 15,707. Mr. Leslie W. … Heinz Co. v.

Citizens for the Abatement of Aircraft Noise, Inc. v. Metropolitan Washington Airports Authority

718 F. Supp. 974 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 20, 1989

Weinberger v. … Nor, given that Congress has already enacted the veto provision under attack, is this a case like Brown v.

Anderson v. USAir, Inc.

619 F. Supp. 1191 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 1985

Anderson a boarding pass. Mr. Anderson and the group with him attempted thereafter to board the plane without a boarding pass. When a USAir employee offered to get him a pass, Mr. … See Brown v. District of Columbia Transit System, Inc., 523 F.2d 725, 727 (D.C.Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 862 , 96 S.Ct. 121 , 46 L.Ed.2d 91 (1975).

Johnson & Wimsatt, Inc. v. Reichel-Derfer

50 F.2d 336 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 4, 1931

Wray v. Ry. Co., 113 Tenn. 544 , 82 S. W. 471 , 475. To the same effect are Fort Collins Development Co. v. France, 41 Colo. 512 , 92 P. 953 ; Brown v. Providence, etc., Ry. Co., 5 Gray (Mass.) 35 ; Martin v. Ry. … Co. v. Smith, 89 Ala. 305 , 7 So. 634 ; Texas & St. L. Ry. Co. v. Eddy, 42 Ark. 527 . And in the Washington Market Case, this court held it error to consider tax assessments in a condemnation proceeding.

LaGON v. Barry

658 F. Supp. 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 1987

In Board of Regents v. … The Tenth Circuit reached the same conclusion in Brown v. Bigger, 622 F.2d 1025 (10th Cir.1980); 8 see also, Covington v.

Woodridge Nursery School v. Jessup

269 A.2d 199 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1970

Thus even before the Act became effective the Board was required to make findings of fact in order to permit the court to review the Board’s decision. 18 .Saginaw Broadcasting Co. v. … See also Allentuck v. District of Columbia Min. W. & I. Safe. Bd., D.C.App., 261 A.2d 826 (1969).

McCamey v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

947 A.2d 1191 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 15, 2008

Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 700 A.2d 787, 791-92 (D.C.1997). … Amoco Oil Co. v.

Koretoff v. Vilsack

601 F. Supp. 2d 238 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 9, 2009

. § 981.1 et seq., regulates the handling of almonds grown in California and is administered locally by the Almond Board of California (the “Board”), a ten-member board composed of growers and handlers nominated by the industry … Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 453 (D.C.Cir.1999) (citation omitted). Likewise, plaintiffs' reliance on Arbaugh v.

In Re Cater

887 A.2d 1 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2005

Harris v. … See, e.g., Gregory, 790 A.2d at 576-77, 579 ; Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, George Angle, D/B/A Kansas Refined Helium Company v. National Labor Relations Board

547 F.2d 575 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 4, 1977

The Board's orders were granted enforcement in all respects by this court. Oil, Chemical & Atomic Workers v. … Perhaps more important, the Board failed to cite more recent authority in both this circuit, see Case v.

Hanson v. OFFICE OF SENATOR MARK DAYTON

535 F. Supp. 2d 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2008

Indeed, Judge Brown, in her concurring opinion in Fields v. … Judges Sentelle and Griffith joined Judge Brown’s concurring opinion.

Powell v. Castaneda

390 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2005

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 455 (D.C.Cir.1999) (holding that an adverse employment action is a prerequisite to bringing a Title VII claim).