Case law

Cooper v. O'CONNOR

99 F.2d 135 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 27, 1938

Brewer, 57 App.D.C. 126, 130 , 18 F.2d 168, 172 , 53 A.L.R. 1519 , certiorari denied, 275 U.S. 530 , 48 S.Ct. 28 , 72 L.Ed. 409 ; Brown v. … Ed. 696 . 21 Lang v. Wood, 67 App.D.C. 287 , 92 F.2d 211 . 22 Brown v. Rudolph, 58 App.D.C. 116 , 25 F.2d 540 , cert. denied, 277 U.S. 605 , 48 S.Ct. 601 , 72 L.Ed. 1011 . 23 Smith v.

Daniel Brink v. Continental Insurance Company

787 F.3d 1120 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 2015

Before: GARLAND, Chief Judge, BROWN, Circuit Judge, and SENTELLE, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the Court filed by Senior Circuit Judge SENTELLE. … See Barnard v. Zapata Haynie Corp., 975 F.2d 919, 920–21 (1st Cir. 1992); see also Sample v.

United States v. Zabavsky

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2023

Hylton-Brown’s system. See Trial Tr. Dec. 1, 2022 a.m. at 54:9-16 (Dr. Tolliver testimony). Il. LEGAL STANDARD Pursuant to Brady v. … Hylton-Brown’s system. Mr.

James A. Bethel, Jr. v. Burtell M. Jefferson, Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department. Ernest E. Hemby v. Burtell M. Jefferson, Chief of Police, Metropolitan Police Department

589 F.2d 631 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 9, 1978

See Bell v. Brown, supra note 54 , 181 U.S.App.D.C. at 230 , 557 F.2d at 853 68 Coles v. Penny, supra note 54 , 174 U.S.App.D.C. at 284 , 531 F.2d at 616 69 Love v. … . § 2000e-16(c) (1976) 78 Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 832 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1967-1968 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402, 411 (1976) 79 Id 80 Adams v.

Kaul v. Federation of State Medical Boards

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2021

Licensure, and the Medical Board of California. … Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 498.

Gasplus v. United States Department of the Interior

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 6, 2009

Brown-Hruska, 396 F.3d 1168 (D.C. Cir. 2005), to argue that a lack of clear precedent can provide substantial justification for an interpretation which a court later finds erroneous. … Finally, the regulations provide that “[s]ubsequent to a decision by the Board, the record filed with the Board and all documents added during the appeal proceeding, including the Board’s decision, shall be forwarded to

Montgomery v. District of Columbia

598 A.2d 162 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1991

District of Columbia v. Gray, 452 A.2d 962, 965 (D.C.1982). 3 Concluding that a “renewed proceeding before the Board ... … Co. v.

Powell v. Nigro

601 F. Supp. 144 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 16, 1985

In re Summers, 325 U.S. 561 , 565 n. 6, 65 S.Ct. 1307 , 1310 n. 6, 89 L.Ed. 1795 (1945); Brown v. Bd. of Bar Examiners of State of Nevada, 623 F.2d 605, 610 (9th Cir.1980); Richardson v. … Virginia Bd. of Bar Examiners, 454 F.Supp. 4, 6 (E.D.Va.1978), aff'd 598 F.2d 1345 (4th Cir.1979); Brown v. Supreme Ct. of Va., 359 F.Supp. 549, 554 (E.D.Va.)

Taylor-Cotten v. District of Columbia Government

District Court, District of Columbia · May 9, 2018

) JOANNE TAYLOR-COTTEN, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. … DATE: May 9, 2018 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Pencheng Si v. Laogai Research Foundation Foundation

71 F. Supp. 3d 73 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 2014

Matheny v. … DATE: October 14, 2014 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Billy Zhao Zhen Zhang v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer

834 A.2d 97 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2003

Harrison v. Board of Trs. of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 758 A.2d 19, 22 (D.C.2000). … We do not suggest through this opinion any view as to what the Board’s judgment should be in this ease. V.

Amalgamated Association Of Street, Electric Railway And Motor Coach Employees Of America, Afl v. National Labor Relations Board

238 F.2d 38 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 25, 1956

238 F.2d 38 99 U.S.App.D.C. 177 AMALGAMATED ASSOCIATION OF STREET, ELECTRIC RAILWAY AND MOTOR COACH EMPLOYEES OF AMERICA, AFL, Petitioner, v. … In effectuating the policies of the Act the Board has a discretion not to exert jurisdiction to the limit of its power. National Labor Relations Board v.

Abdul Ali v. Donald Trump

959 F.3d 364 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 2020

Reg. 13,277 (March 7, 2011) (establishing the Periodic Review Board). … Vermilya-Brown Co. v. Connell, 335 U.S. 377, 380 (1948). 4 Qassim v. Trump, 938 F.3d 375, 376 (D.C.

International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America, Local No. 310, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board

587 F.2d 1176 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 1, 1978

P 10,726 INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF TEAMSTERS, CHAUFFEURS, WAREHOUSEMEN AND HELPERS OF AMERICA, LOCAL NO. 310, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, United Steelworkers of America, Intervenor. … The majority has substituted its conclusion from the evidence for the expert judgments of the Board. This a court cannot do. NLRB v.

In re Blair

40 A.3d 883 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2012

of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (a) (2000). 1 The events that led to Blair’s convictions are set forth in detail in United States v. … APPENDIX REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY This matter is before the Board on Professional Responsibility (the “Board”) pursuant to an order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

United States v. Nwoye

663 F.3d 460 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 9, 2011

Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. Dissenting opinion filed by Circuit Judge TATEL. … BROWN, Circuit Judge: Appellant, Queen Nwoye (“Nwoye”), was convicted of conspiring with a male accomplice, Adriane Osuagwu (“Osuagwu”), to extort money from Dr.

Jones v. Greenspan

445 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 29, 2006

Compl. ¶¶ 1, 9, 13, 16; Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. … The plaintiff admits that he did not present his concerns to an EEOC counselor with the 45-day limit required under the rules of the Board and the EEOC. Pl.’s Mot. at 5.

Hiligh v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

935 A.2d 1070 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2007

See generally District of Columbia v. … As there is no provision in the District’s statute from which the Board’s interpretation can reasonably arise, we conclude that the Board’s conclusion is legally erroneous. Weaver Bros. v.

Joseph v. United States

926 A.2d 1156 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2007

M; see, e.g., Peay v. United States, 597 A.2d 1318, 1320 (D.C.1991) (en banc). The court’s legal conclusions on Fourth Amendment issues, however, are “subject to de novo review.” Brown v. … Brown, 590 A.2d at 1014 ; see United States v.

Thomas v. Principi

265 F. Supp. 2d 35 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 2003

Instead, such determinations can be reviewed only by the Board of Veterans Appeals, and from there, by the Court of Veterans Appeals and the United States Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit. See Beamon v. … Brown, 125 F.3d 965 , 967 (6th Cir.1997); Larrabee v. Derwinski, 968 F.2d 1497 (2d Cir. 1992) (reviewing history of § 511). 5 . Plaintiff has also filed a Motion for Leave to File an Amended Complaint.