Case law

Howard v. Bradshaw and Ona Bradshaw v. United States of America, Howard v. Bradshaw and Ona Bradshaw v. United States

443 F.2d 759 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 11, 1971

See United States v. Brown, 348 U.S. 110 , 75 S.Ct. 141 , 99 L.Ed. 139 (1954); Hale v. United States, 416 F.2d 355 (6th Cir. 1969); United States v. … See Cobia v. United States, 384 F.2d 711 (10th Cir. 1967); United States v. Browning, 359 F.2d 937 (10th Cir. 1966); Wolff v. Britton, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 209 , 328 F.2d 181 (1964).

International Woodworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Local 3-10 v. National Labor Relations Board, Long Lake Lumber Company, Intervenor

458 F.2d 852 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 18, 1972

Fruit & Vegetable Packers and Warehousemen, Local 760 v. NLRB, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 388, 389-390 , 316 F.2d 389 , 390-391 (1963); and see Retail Clerks Union No. 1550 v. … Union, Local 4-243 v. NLRB, 124 U.S.App.D.C. 113, 116 , 362 F.2d 943, 946 (1966).

Asare v. LM-DC Hotel, LLC

62 F. Supp. 3d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 7, 2014

See Minch v. District of Columbia, 952 A.2d 929, 941-42 (D.C. 2008). As a result, this claim fails. The retaliation claim – pressed only by Brown – is similarly infirm for two reasons. … First, Brown has not sufficiently alleged that he engaged in any protected activity, see Lemmons v. Georgetown Univ. Hosp., 431 F.

America v. Barreto

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 30, 2009

Brown an opportunity to amend her complaint,” and Ms. Brown accepted the offer by filing an amended complaint. See Brown v. United States, 271 F. … Brown v. United States, 389 F.3d at 1297; see also Brown v. United States, 84 Fed. Cl. 400, 403 (Fed.

Doe v. Office of Representative Sheila Jackson Lee

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 14, 2020

Browning-Ferris Indus., Inc., 691 F.2d 1117, 1123 (3d Cir. 1982)). … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (internal quotation marks omitted).

National Black United Fund, Inc. v. Campbell

494 F. Supp. 748 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 1980

See also Carey v. Brown,__U.S. at___, 100 S.Ct. at 2289. The- regulation must ensure that individuals are not empowered with determining the “worthiness” of a particular cause. Cantwell v. … See Goldberg v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254 , 90 S.Ct. 1011 , 25 L.Ed.2d 287 (1970); see also Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972).

Lebrun v. England

212 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 11, 2002

That is, the action is not ripe for review until the correction board has rendered its final decision.” Smalls v. United States, 87 F.Supp.2d 1055, 1059 (D.Haw.2000) (citing Dougherty, 784 F.2d at 501 ). … Willoughby, 345 U.S. 83, 93 , 73 S.Ct. 534 , 97 L.Ed. 842 (1953); United States v. Stanley, 483 U.S. 669, 682 , 107 S.Ct. 3054 , 97 L.Ed.2d 550 (1987); Brown v.

Augburn v. United States

514 A.2d 452 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 1986

In Frazier v. … In Toliver v.

United States v. Michael

788 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 1992

The defendant also argues that the government failed to demonstrate that the substance was cocaine base, as defined in United States v. Brown, 859 F.2d 974 (D.C.Cir.1988). … See United States v. Turner, 928 F.2d 956 , 960 n. 1 (10th Cir.1990).

SoundExchange, Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Bd.

904 F.3d 41 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 18, 2018

Sys., Inc. v. Copyright Royalty Bd., 574 F.3d 748 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Beethoven.com LLC v. Librarian of Cong., 394 F.3d 939 (D.C. Cir. 2005). … Neustar, Inc. v. FCC, 857 F.3d 886, 893–94 (D.C. Cir. 2017). Before Neustar, we had held that a party challenging an agency’s interpretation of a statute could forfeit an objection to Chevron deference. See Lubow v.

Capitol Hill Hospital v. District of Columbia State Health Planning & Development Agency

600 A.2d 793 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1991

Co. v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals Bd., 549 A.2d 315, 318 (D.C.1988) (Superior Court jurisdiction for “protest” rather than “appeal” of Board’s decision); Capitol Hill Restoration Soc’y, Inc. v. … (quoting Brown v. Duchesne, 60 U.S. (19 How.) 183, 194 , 15 L.Ed. 595 (1857)); District of Columbia v.

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

218 F.R.D. 312 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 12, 2003

Brinton v. … Renegotiation Board v.

In Re Cleaver-Bascombe

986 A.2d 1191 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 2010

Mgmt. v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. Comm’n, 677 A.2d 46, 48 (D.C.1996) (citing Kritsidi- *1196 mas v. Sheskin, 411 A.2d 370, 371 (D.C.1980)); see also M.A.P. v. … Id..; Hsu v. United States, 392 A.2d 972, 980-81 (D.C.1978) (stating the rule that "one witness plus independent corroborative evidence will also suffice” for proof of perjury). .

Jackson v. Clifford

5 App. D.C. 312 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 5, 1895

Y. 412 ; Wiles v. Suydam, 64 N. Y. 173 ; Easterly v. Barber, 65 N. Y. 252 ; Knox v. Baldwin, 80 N. Y. 610 ; Veeder v. Baker, 83 N. Y. 156 ; Pier v. George, 86 N. Y. 613 ; Stokes v. Stickney, 96 N. Y. 323 . … Squires v. Brown, 22 How. Pr. 35 . Indeed, the right to resign seems to be well established upon authority. Bruce v. Platt, 80 N. Y. 379 ; Briggs v. Spaulding, 141 U.

United Scenic Artists, Local 829, Brotherhood of Painters and Allied Trades, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

655 F.2d 1267 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 26, 1981

Were this merely a question of credibility, we would agree that it is properly left to the ALJ and the Board. Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. … This record is therefore inadequate to support an unstated assumption drawn by the Board that the Union had knowledge of TTI’s complete control over the disputed work. NLRB v.

United States v. Turner

699 A.2d 1125 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1997

Cauthen v. United States, 592 A.2d 1021 (D.C.1991); Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1020 (D.C.1991). … Peay v. United States, 597 A.2d 1318,1319-20 (D.C.1991) (en bane); Gomez, swpra, 597 A.2d at 889; *1128 Brown, supra, 590 A.2d at 1012-15 ; Duhart v.

Mayflower Hotel Stockholders Protective Committee v. Mayflower Hotel Corp.

193 F.2d 666 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 29, 1951

v. … The new directors of the Mayflower Board, placed there by Hilton, refrained from voting when the Board approved the contract.

Shelton v. United States

388 A.2d 859 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 1978

He stated that at the time of the robbery he was with his girlfriend, Vera Brown, celebrating her birthday. Ms. … v.

Johnson v. District of Columbia, Department of Health

163 A.3d 746 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2017

Faulkenstein v. … Ait-Ghezala v.

Rd. Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669 v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

324 F. Supp. 3d 85 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 24, 2018

v. … And "[i]t is well-established that 'the Board need only select an appropriate unit, not the most appropriate unit.' " Rhino Nw., LLC v. NLRB , 867 F.3d 95 , 99 (D.C. Cir. 2017) (quoting Dodge of Naperville, Inc. v.