Case law

Blair-Bey v. Quick

151 F.3d 1036 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 24, 1998

The Court expressly left this possibility open in Preiser v. Rodriguez, see 411 U.S. 475, 499 , 93 S.Ct. 1827 , 36 L.Ed.2d 439 (1973); see also Brown v. … Compare Flemming v. Oregon Board of Parole, 998 F.2d 721 (9th Cir.1993) (Oregon’s parole regulations are “laws” for ex post facto purposes) with Bailey v.

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

686 F.3d 832 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 27, 2012

Before: SENTELLE, Chief Judge, BROWN, Circuit Judge, and SILBERMAN, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court by Circuit Judge BROWN. … Similarly, in Diffenderfer v.

Anderson v. U.S. Safe Deposit Co.

552 A.2d 859 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 1989

The Jones decision also overlooked the paragraph in our Brown opinion (possibly *862 because the case was miscited) in which we referred to Allison v. … M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1971). 7 . 70 Misc.2d 215 , 333 N.Y.S.2d 261 (N.Y.Sup.Ct.1972). 8 . See Brown, supra, 425 A.2d at 1312-13 . 9 .

Minnesota Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Coe

49 F. Supp. 706 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 7, 1942

Lucke et al. v. Coe, 63 App.D.C. 61 , 69 F.2d 379, 381 , 382 and Gandy v. Marble, 122 U.S. 432, 439 , 7 S.Ct. 1290 , 30 L.Ed. 1223 . … The degree of improvement in efficiency in the abrasive art provided by the novel teaching of Brown and Clarke is strong evidence of patentability. Webster Loom Co. v.

Lockamy v. Truesdale

182 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2001

National Labor Relations Board (“the defendant” or “the NLRB”). … See Brown v. General Serv. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976).

Allina Health System v. Becerra

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 2024

A hospital may seek judicial review of “any final decision of the Board” by filing suit in federal district court within sixty days of the Board’s determination. Id. § 1395oo(f)(1). … See Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002).  C. Motion to Compel The APA requires the court to “review the whole record” in making its decision. 5 U.S.C

Trapps v. United States

887 A.2d 484 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 2005

Brown v. United States, 881 A.2d 586, 593 (D.C.2005) (quoting Russell v. United States, 698 A.2d 1007, 1012 (D.C.1997)) (other citations and internal quotation marks omitted). … See Selby v.

McGovern v. George Washington University

245 F. Supp. 3d 167 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2017

Co. v. … Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730, 742 (1983). Moreover, probable cause does not “require the same type of specific evidence of each element of the offense as would be needed to support a conviction,” Adams v.

Sanders v. District of Columbia

522 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 8, 2007

See Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d at 1276 ; Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d at 242 . B. … Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. at 573 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 .

Lewis v. Parker

67 F. Supp. 3d 189 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 2014

Brown’s Mem. Supp. Def. Brown’s Mot. (“Def. Brown’s Mem.”) Ex. 5 (District of Columbia Probate Court Order Granting Petition for Compensation, Dec. 7, 2009, filed in Jarvis v. Parker, 2003 ADM 1036) (“Def. … Brown’s Reply Pls.’ Opp’n Def. Brown’s Mot. Dismiss (“Def.

Powder River Basin Resource Council v. Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2024

Workers Union Loc. 751 v. Brown Grp., 517 U.S. 544, 553 (1996) (quoting Hunt v. Wash. State Apple Advert. Comm’n, 432 U.S. 333, 343 (1977)). The first standing requirement is injury in fact. … Applying this framework, in Eagle County, Colorado v. Surface Transportation Board, 82 F.4th 1152, 1182 (D.C. Cir. 2023), the D.C.

Winder v. Erste

566 F.3d 209 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 2009

Lottery Board spoke pursuant to duty to maintain Board’s financial integrity when he reported Board members’ financial misconduct); Wilburn v. Robinson, 480 F.3d 1140, 1151 (D.C. … See, e.g., Reaves-Bey v.

Schlottman v. Solis

845 F. Supp. 2d 107 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 2012

See Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C.Cir.1997) (citing Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 832-33 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976)). … Newcastle v.

Angarano v. United States

312 A.2d 295 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 1973

Brown v. … Court holding “. . . regardless of the merit or lack of merit of these complaints, other counsel should have been appointed to represent Brown when the proceedings took this turn”; Christopher Smith v. U.

C&E Servs., Inc. v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority

310 F.3d 197 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 15, 2002

"Property interests," the Supreme Court held in Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972), "are not created by the Constitution. … Block v. Cmty.

Innovatit Seafood Systems, LLC v. Commissioner for Patents

573 F. Supp. 2d 96 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2008

E.g., Brown v. 3M, 265 F.3d 1349, 1352 (Fed.Cir.2001) (citing Peters v. Active Mfg. Co., 129 U.S. 530, 537 , 9 S.Ct. 389 , 32 L.Ed. 738 (1889)). … .”); Titanium Metals Corp. v.

Bhagwanani v. Howard University

355 F. Supp. 2d 294 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 17, 2005

See Shamrock Oil & Gas Corp. v. Sheets, 313 U.S. 100, 107-09 , 61 S.Ct. 868 , 85 L.Ed. 1214 (1941); Johnson-Brown v. 2200 M Street LLC, 257 F.Supp.2d 175, 177 (D.D.C.2003). … Dixon v. Coburg Dairy, Inc., 369 F.3d 811, 815-16 (4th Cir.2004) (en banc); see Johnson-Brown, 257 F.Supp.2d at 177 .

West Texas Utilities Co. v. National Labor Relations Board (International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers [A. F. L.], Intervenor)

184 F.2d 233 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 1950

No. 62. 32 . 29 U.S.C.A. § 160 (e); National Labor Relations Board v. Cheney California Lumber Co., 1946, 327 U.S. 385, 388-389 , 66 S.Ct. 553 , 90 L.Ed. 739 . 33 . Pranks Bros. Co.. v. National Labor . … Relations Board,.1944, 321 U.S. 702, 704-705 , 64 S.Ct.. 817, 8g. L.Ed. 1020; Medo Photo Supply Corp. v.

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA CONTRACT APPEALS BOARD, and PRINCE CONSTRUCTION CO., INC., and W.M. SCHLOSSER CONSTRUCTION CO., INC

145 A.3d 523 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 2016

Sys., Inc. v. … Historical support for the liberal approach to notice requirements adopted by other boards of contract appeals and federal courts can be found in United States v. Cunningham, 125 F.2d 28, 30 (D.C.

Bishop v. Jelleff Associates

398 F. Supp. 579 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 11, 1974

Hodgson v. Hyatt, 318 F.Supp. 390 (D.C.Fla.1970); Krumbeck v. John Oster Mfg. Co., 313 F.Supp. 257 (D.C.Wis.1970); Dowd v. Blackstone Cleaners, 306 F.Supp. 1276 (D.C.Tex.1969); Coleman v. … The claims of Brown, Rhodes and Taylor are dismissed for failure to provide reasonable discovery after having been given opportunity to do so. Brennan v.