Case law

Manion v. American Airlines, Inc.

251 F. Supp. 2d 171 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2003

Clay v. Brown, Hopkins & Stambaugh, 892 F.Supp. 11 (1995). … Doe v. National Board of Medical Examiners, 2001 WL 1003206 at *4 (E.D.Pa. August 14, 2001).

Don W. Smith v. National Transportation Safety Board, and James B. Busey, Administrator, Federal Aviation Administration

981 F.2d 1326 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 1993

The NTSB relies upon a dictum to this effect in Capuano v. National Transportation Safety Board, 843 F.2d 56, 58 (1st Cir.1988). … See Stokes v.

American Postal Workers Union, Afl-Cio v. United States Postal Service

940 F.2d 704 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 9, 1991

See Brown v. General Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 834-35 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1969 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). … The appellants might also have sought reinstatement before the Merit Systems Protection Board. See 39 U.S.C. § 1005 (c); 5 U.S.C. § 8151 ; 5 C.F.R. § 353 ; see also Roche v. USPS, 828 F.2d 1555, 1557 (Fed.Cir.1987).

Investment Company Institute v. Camp

274 F. Supp. 624 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 1967

Pepper v. Litton, 308 U.S. 295 , 60 S.Ct. 238 , 84 L.Ed. 281 (1939); Brown v. Bullock, 194 F.Supp. 207 (S.D. N.Y.1961), affirmed 294 F.2d 415 (2nd Cir. 1961). … Agnew, 329 U.S. 441, 449 , 67 S.Ct. 311 , 415, 91 L.Ed. 408 (1946), see also United States v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 454 , 85 S.Ct. 1707 , 14 L.Ed.2d 484 (1965).

Berrigan v. Sigler

358 F. Supp. 130 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 1973

See also, Yakus v. United States, 321 U.S. 414, 440-441 , 64 S.Ct. 660 , 88 L.Ed. 834 (1944). 6 . Berrigan and Berrigan v. Sigler, Chairman of Board of Parole, et al., 475 F.2d 918 (D.C.Cir., 1973). 7 . … United States v. Wilson, 32 U.S. (7 Pet.) 149, 160 , 8 L.Ed. 640 (1833); see also Brown v. Kearney, 355 F.2d 199, 200 (5th Cir. 1966); United States ex rel. Randazzo v.

United States of America v. Aetna Inc.

240 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 2017

Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 323 (1962). Hence, mergers with “probable anticompetitive effect[s]” are prohibited by the Clayton Act. Id. … Verizon Commc’ns Inc. v. Law Offices of Curtis V. Trinko, LLP, 540 U.S. 398, 411 (2004); see also Brown Shoe, 370 U.S. at 321–22.

Metropolitan Police Retiring Association, Inc. v. Walter N. Tobriner, Board of Commissioners for the District of Columbia

306 F.2d 775 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 1962

See, e. g., Helvering v. Le Gierse, 312 U.S. 531, 539-540 , 61 S.Ct. 646 , 85 L.Ed. 996 ; Jordan v. Group Health Ass’n, 71 App.D.C. 38, 43-44 , 107 F.2d 239, 244-245 ; Home Title Ins. Co. v. … Jordan v. Group Health Ass’n, supra.

Retail Clerks Union, Local 1401, Retail Clerks International Association, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Zinke's Foods, Inc., Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. Zinke's Foods, Inc.

463 F.2d 316 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 30, 1972

Casting Co. v. … See Riverside Press, Inc. v.

San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, (Two Cases). San Francisco Local Joint Executive Board of Culinary Workers v. National Labor Relations Board, McDonald System of California, Inc., Intervenor

501 F.2d 794 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 21, 1974

P 10,127 SAN FRANCISCO LOCAL JOINT EXECUTIVE BOARD OF CULINARY WORKERS et al., Petitioners, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent (two cases). … NLRB v.

Carter v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2025

See generally Brown v. United States, 983 A.2d 1023 (D.C. 2009); Kelly v. United States, 580 A.2d 1282 (D.C. 1990). … Brown answered that she was simply counting her money. Brown, 983 A.2d at 1025. Thus, it was “entirely reasonable for the officer to ask her question again.” Gordon v.

Ex-Cell-O Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, International Union, United Automobile, Aerospace and Agricultural Implement Workers of America, Uaw v. National Labor Relations Board

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

P 11,801 EX-CELL-O CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. INTERNATIONAL UNION, UNITED AUTOMOBILE, AEROSPACE AND AGRICULTURAL IMPLEMENT WORKERS OF AMERICA, UAW, Petitioner, v. … Compare NLRB v.

Glenn v. United States

391 A.2d 772 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1978

In United States v. … See United States v. Brown, supra at 400, 428 F.2d at 1102 .

Ernestine Hirshfeld, of the Estate of Sam H. Hirshfeld v. District of Columbia

254 F.2d 774 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 13, 1958

City of Owensboro, Ky.1955, 282 S.W.2d 628 ; Huntington v. City of Calais, 1909, 105 Me. 144 , 73 A. 829 ; Brown v. Town of Winthrop, 1931, 275 Mass. 43 , 175 N.E. 50 ; Braun v. … Wayne County, 1942, 303 Mich. 454 , 6 N.W.2d 744 ; Aronson v. City of St. Paul, 1934, 193 Minn. 34 , 257 N.W. 662 ; Board of County Com’rs of San Miguel County v. Pierce, 1892, 6 N.M. 324 , 28 P. 512 ; Lewis v.

Armstrong v. Federal Aviation Administration

515 F.3d 1294 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 19, 2008

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, and GINSBURG and BROWN, Circuit Judges. … The emergency determination also prevented Armstrong from obtaining a stay of the order while he appealed it to the National Transportation Safety Board. Id. § 44709(e)(2).

Hamilton v. City of Washington, District of Columbia

852 F. Supp. 2d 139 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 5, 2012

Cir. 2006) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C. Cir. 1999)) The District does not appear to challenge the first and second elements of plaintiffs= prima facie case. … Comm'rs of Bryan Cnty., Okl. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 408 (1997).

General Electric Company v. National Labor Relations Board, United Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers of America, Intervenor

117 F.3d 627 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 18, 1997

See Daily News v. NLRB, 979 F.2d 1571 , 1576 (D.C.Cir.1992) (where Board appeared to have “altered course” from prior precedent without explanation, court remanded to Board for further consideration). … Workers v. NLRB, 593 F.2d 1155 , 1164 (D.C.Cir.1978) (Board’s determination that no violation of Act occurred must be upheld “ ‘unless it has no rational basis’ ”) (quoting ILGWU v.

National Federation of Federal Employees v. Paul Greenberg, Major General, Commander, Headquarters, Army, Armament, Munitions & Chemical Command

983 F.2d 286 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 29, 1993

See also Dorfmont v. Brown, 913 F.2d at 1402-04 ; Jamil v. Secretary, Dep’t of Defense, 910 F.2d 1203 , 1209 (4th Cir.1990); High Tech Gays v. Defense Indus. Sec. … Brown v. Walker, 161 U.S. 591, 599-600 , 16 S.Ct. 644, 648 , 40 L.Ed. 819 (1896) (citation omitted). See, e.g., Devine v. Goodstein, 680 F.2d 243, 247 (D.C.Cir.1982) (per curiam).

Held v. National Railroad Passenger Corp.

101 F.R.D. 420 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 23, 1984

In Republic Steel Corp. v. … Brown v. Capitol Hill Club, 425 A.2d 1309, 1311 (D.C.App.1981). That does not help Amtrak, however.

International Brotherhood of Boilermakers, Iron Ship Builders, Blacksmiths, Forgers & Helpers v. National Labor Relations Board

316 F.2d 373 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 14, 1963

However, in another proceeding this determination was appealed and was remanded to the Board for further consideration. N. L. R. B. v. … See National Labor Relations Board v. Coca-Cola Bot. Co., 350 U.S. 264 , 76 S.Ct. 383 , 100 L.Ed. 285 (1956); National Labor Relations Board v.

Richard Figueroa v. Michael Pompeo

923 F.3d 1078 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 2019

The first board reviews all employees across a salary level – all FS-02 officers, for instance. The second board then reviews the candidates whom the Secretary did not promote from the first board’s recommendations. … See, e.g., Browning v. Dep’t of the Army, 436 F.3d 692, 697 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[E]mployers may use matrices that reward applicants who meet subjective criteria.”).