Case law

United States v. Zabavsky

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 25, 2024

Hylton-Brown obtained the Revel moped “could have affected the judgment of the jury.” United States v. Williams, 233 F.3d 592, 594 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting United States v. … Hylton-Brown’s “dying words,” that testimony is not a sufficient reason for the Court to order a new trial. United States v. Jones, 84 F. Supp. 2d at 126 (citing United States v.

Lang v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2023

Plaintiff boarded the plane and did not realize until the flight reached London that the rest of the group had missed the flight. Id. ¶¶ 24(g)-(h). … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). The court does not assess the truth of what is asserted nor “whether a plaintiff has any evidence to back up what is in the complaint.” Id. (citation omitted).

District of Columbia v. Kora & Williams Corp.

743 A.2d 682 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1999

Boeing Co. v. United States, 31 Fed. … See, e.g., College Point Boat Corp. v.

Walton v. District of Columbia

670 A.2d 1346 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 1996

See District of Columbia v. Mayhew, 601 A.2d 37, 43 (D.C.1991); Adarand Constructors Inc. v. Pena, — U.S. -, -, 115 S.Ct. *1352 2097, 2105-08 , 132 L.Ed.2d 158 (1995); Bolling v. … The Board simply rewrote and re-issued its first written statement finding Walton guilty of the regulatory violations. .See Patsy v. Board of Regents, 457 U.S. 496 , 102 S.Ct. 2557 , 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982).

Oil, Chemical and Atomic Workers International Union, Local 4-243, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Allied Chemical Corporation, Intervenor

362 F.2d 943 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 24, 1966

Lorain Journal Co. v. FCC, 122 U.S.App.D.C. 127 , 351 F.2d 824 , 828 (1965), cert. denied sub nom. WWIZ, Inc. v. FCC, 383 U.S. 967 , 86 S.Ct. 1272 , 16 L.Ed.2d 308 (April 4, 1966). … Retail Store Employees Union v. NLRB, 123 U.S.App.D.C.-, 360 F.2d 494 (July 13, 1965). In our opinion, the Board properly discharged this function.

Systronics Corp. v. Immigration & Naturalization Service

153 F. Supp. 2d 7 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2001

The court concluded “[b]ecause the Board only listed the facts and stated its conclusions, but did not connect them in any rational way, the Board’s decisions are arbitrary and capricious.” … The Attorney General may divest his authority to the INS. 8 U.S.C.A. § 1103 ; see also Brown v. I.N.S., 775 F.2d 383, 387 (D.C.Cir.1985). 3 . The court has jurisdiction to decide if jurisdiction exists. Matsuk v.

Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, Etc. v. National Labor Relations Board, John Cuneo, Inc., Intervenor. John Cuneo, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Road Sprinkler Fitters Local Union No. 669, U.A., Intervenor

681 F.2d 11 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 18, 1982

P 13,631 ROAD SPRINKLER FITTERS LOCAL UNION NO. 669, etc., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, John Cuneo, Inc., Intervenor. JOHN CUNEO, INC., Petitioner, v. … E.g., Midwest Regional Joint Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers v. NLRB, 564 F.2d 434 , 443 (D.C.Cir.1977); Teamsters Local 633 v. NLRB, 509 F.2d 490 , 493-95 (D.C.Cir.1974).

Texas Neighborhood Services v. United States Department of Health & Human Services

875 F.3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 8, 2017

Ctr. v. Sebelius, 572 F.3d 912, 916 (D.C. Cir. 2009). … See Bally’s Park Place, Inc. v. NLRB, 646 F.3d 929, 939 (D.C.

Taylor v. District of Columbia

691 A.2d 121 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 1997

Taylor drove Officer Brown to the First District Police Precinct to see his girlfriend. Officer Brown instructed Mr. Taylor to pull into the driveway of the police precinct, where he [Brown] got out of Mr. … In Wade v.

Smith v. Smith

256 A.2d 833 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 1969

Brown v. Brown, supra. Thus, since Jones had a living wife at the time, his marriage to appellee in 1930 was void, and therefore she was free to marry appellant. … Harsley v. United States, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 160, 151 , 187 F.2d 213, 214 (1951). New York has the same rule. See Brown v. Brown, 51 Misc.2d 839 , 274 N.Y.S.2d 484 (1966). 2 . Wheeler v.

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.

Powell v. District of Columbia

645 F. Supp. 66 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 1986

See Washington, 429 A.2d at 1366 ; Brown v. District of Columbia, 304 A.2d at 293 ; see also Dellums v. … Because of the Brown v. United States opinion, plaintiff’s federal tort claims are preserved from the notice requirements of D.C.Code § 12-309.

Matter of Banks

577 A.2d 316 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 6, 1990

Respondent further contends, relying on Stackhouse v. … Similarly, his reliance on Jameson v. King, 571 A.2d 216 (D.C.1990), is to no avail since that too does not address economic losses. Further, Stackhouse v.

In Re Chapman

962 A.2d 922 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2009

Respondent did not appeal from the Board’s Report and Recommendation, but Bar Counsel takes exception to the Board’s recommended sanction. … (citing United States v. Grayson, 438 U.S. 41, 50-54 , 98 S.Ct. 2610 , 57 L.Ed.2d 582 (1978)).

In re Martin

67 A.3d 1032 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2013

The Florida Bar v. … The following authorities hold that funds need not be returned: Board of Prof'l Responsibility v.

GS New Markets Fund, L.L.C. v. United States Department of the Treasury, Community Development Financial Institutions Fund

407 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 16, 2005

See 5 U.S.C. § 706 (2)(A); see also Chrysler Corp. v. Brown, 441 U.S. 281, 317-18 , 99 S.Ct. 1705 , 60 L.Ed.2d 208 (1979); Occidental Petroleum Corp. v. S.E.C., 873 F.2d 325, 337 (D.C.Cir.1989). … of the entity or any advisory board to the entity; and (c) has been certified as a CDE by the Fund.”

Dome Patent, L.P. v. Rea

59 F. Supp. 3d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2014

Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d at 1130. … See, e.g., Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp. v. Philip Morris Inc., 229 F.3d at 1130. Moreover, fact-finders in patent cases are instructed to take an “expansive and flexible approach” when considering obviousness.

Atlantic Coast Airlines Holdings, Inc. v. Mesa Air Group, Inc.

295 F. Supp. 2d 75 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 18, 2003

See Bertoglio v. … Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 320 , 82 S.Ct. 1502 , 8 L.Ed.2d 510 (1962). The *96 identity of the members of the ACA Board is, therefore, not the issue.

Rodriguez v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 15, 2017

RODRIGUEZ, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Civil Action … DATE: February 15, 2017 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Hughey Payne v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

99 A.3d 665 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2014

Hosp. v. … This court‘s ―standard of review mirrors that which the Board is bound to apply‖ when the Board reviews an ALJ‘s compensation order. Id. at 1276 (citing Marriott Int’l v.