Case law

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.

Banks v. District of Columbia

559 F. Supp. 2d 63 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2008

See, e.g., Kentucky v. … See Swierkiewicz v.

Rochon v. Ashcroft

319 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 25, 2004

See also Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235 (D.C.Cir.2002); Kowal v. … Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446 at 452 .

Greenfield v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2025

Brown v. United States, 313 A.3d 555, 560 (D.C. 2024) (quoting Bingman v. United States, 267 A.3d 1084, 1087 (D.C. 2022)). … While “[p]robable cause cannot be based on a ‘hunch’ or ‘gut’ feeling,” In re T.H., 898 A.2d 908, 912 (D.C. 2006) (quoting (Marvin) Brown v.

Keene v. United States

661 A.2d 1073 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1995

See Brown v. United States, 409 A.2d 1093, 1099 (D.C.1979) (evidence is relevant where it “will tend to establish a material proposition in the case”). … See Lawrence v.

Kim v. United States Department of the Interior

859 F. Supp. 2d 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 7, 2012

Def.’s Mot., Declaration of Pamela Brown Blackburn (“Brown Blackburn Decl.”) ¶ 4. … Brown Blackburn Decl. ¶ 9.

Herbert v. Architect of the Capitol

766 F. Supp. 2d 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2011

Co., Ltd. v. … Brown v. Mills, 674 F.Supp.2d 182, 188 (D.D.C.2009).

In Re Peek

565 A.2d 627 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1989

The Board on Professional Responsibility found respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, DR 6 — 101(A)(3), had intentionally failed to seek a client’s lawful objectives, DR V — 101(A)(1), and had engaged in … V. Respondent has not contested the proposed stay, coupled with imposition of a two-year probation (including monitoring by medical and professional experts). We are required, nonetheless, to review its suitability.

United States v. Philip Morris USA Inc.

840 F.3d 844 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 1, 2016

Prior to trial, Brown & Williamson merged its domestic tobacco operations with RJR and reconstituted itself into a passive holding company called Brown & Williamson Holdings (BWH). … June 11, 2014) (asserting that RJR, “in its capacity as successor to Brown and Williamson,” sought to dissolve “those provisions [of the remedial order] . . . that require corrective statements on behalf of [Brown & Williamson

Driver v. United States District Court for the District of California

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2015

Brown, Jr. See Compl. W 1, 4, 5. … Moreover, plaintiff purports to sue Governor Brown “in his individual and official capacities,” Compl. fl 5, but he alleges no facts showing that Brown was personally involved in the alleged misconduct and he describes Brown

Matter of Robertson

612 A.2d 1236 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1992

Then, after citing and quoting from Lee v. … See Sloan v. United States, 527 A.2d 1277, 1288-90 (D.C.1986) (per curiam); Jones v. United States, 560 A.2d 513 (1989); Hardy v. United States, 578 A.2d 178 (1990).

Crews v. United States

389 A.2d 277 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1978

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 601 n.6, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d *285 416 (1975). … As the Court indicated in Brown v.

Jones v. Bernanke

538 F. Supp. 2d 53 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2008

Dist. v. … Forkkio v. Powell, 306 F.3d 1127, 1131 (D.C.Cir.2002) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C.Cir.1999)).

Columbia Plaza Limited Partnership v. Cowles

403 F. Supp. 1337 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 10, 1975

See, e. g., Burbank v. … Brown: A Preemption Analysis, 84 Yale L.J. 1164 , 1167-69 (1975), and cases cited therein.

MARLON WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES

130 A.3d 343 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2016

Brown’s testimonial hearsay statements, we conclude that their erroneous admission was harmless. See Duvall v. United States, 975 A.2d 839, 843 (D.C.2009) (applying the test for harmless error under Chapman v. … (quoting United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654, 664 (2d Cir.2003))). Mr. Williams has made no argument that the trial court plainly erred on this basis. .

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, , Western Air Lines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., Pan American World Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Western Air Lines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., Intervenors. National Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Western Air Lines, Inc., Pan American World Airways, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., Intervenors. American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Pan American World Airways, Inc., Western Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors

561 F.2d 293 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 2, 1977

PAN AMERICAN WORLD AIRWAYS, INC., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent, Western Air Lines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., Intervenors. NATIONAL AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. … No merger was involved in CAB v.

Jolley v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 2023

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Supp. 2d 118, 127 (D.D.C. 2011), he need not plead each element of a prima facie employment discrimination case, Brown v. Sessoms, 774 F.3d 1016, 1023 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (citing Brady v.

Nytes v. Trustify, Inc.

297 F. Supp. 3d 191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 20, 2018

(quoting Johnson-Brown v. 2200 M St., LLC , 257 F.Supp.2d 175 , 177 (D.D.C. 2003) ) ). … Brown v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. , 26 F.Supp.2d 74 , 77 (D.D.C. 1998) (internal quotation marks omitted) (second alteration in original). *209 III.