Case law

In Re Gonzalez

773 A.2d 1026 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2001

Fred Weber, Inc. v. … See United States v. Kasmir, 499 F.2d 444 , 453 n. 6 (5th Cir.1974) (quoting Ethical Consideration 4—4), rev’d on other grounds sub nom Fisher v. United States, 425 U.S. 391 , 96 S.Ct. 1569 , 48 L.Ed.2d 39 (1976).

National Ass'n of Letter Carriers v. United States Civil Service Commission

346 F. Supp. 578 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 31, 1972

Robel, 389 U.S. 258 , 88 S.Ct. 419 , 19 L.Ed.2d 508 (1967); Keyishian v. Board of Regents, 385 U.S. 589 , 87 S.Ct. 675 , 17 L.Ed.2d 629 (1967). [11] See Roth v. … Board of Regents, supra note 10 , 385 U.S. at 597-604 , 87 S.Ct. 675 , 17 L.Ed.2d 629 ; Baggett v. Bullitt, 377 U.S. 360, 366-373 , 84 S.Ct. 1316 , 12 L.Ed.2d 377 (1964); NAACP v.

In Re Gil

656 A.2d 303 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1995

See Skeeter v. … See United States v. Baish, 460 A.2d 38, 40-41 (D.C.1983).

Matter of Rosen

470 A.2d 292 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1983

Clotterbuck v. United States, 459 A.2d 134, 135 (D.C.1983); Jones v. United States, 347 A.2d 399, 401 (D.C.1975); Bouknight v. United States, 305 A.2d 524, 526 (D.C.1973) (separate statement by Nebeker, J.). … Jones v.

In Re Morrell

684 A.2d 361 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 1996

V. … Morrell cites two cases, In re Dwyer, 399 A.2d 1 (D.C.1979), and Eilers v.

Hotel Employees Local No. 255 v. Leedom

147 F. Supp. 306 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 1957

The United Electrical Radio & Machine Workers, 93 U.S.App.D.C. 178 , 211 F.2d 36 ; see also DePratter v. Farmer, 98 U.S.App.D.C. 74 , 232 F.2d 74 , Fay v. Douds, 2 Cir., 172 F.2d 720 , and Leedom v. … B. v.

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department v. Fraternal Order of Police/Metropolitan Police Department Labor Committee

997 A.2d 65 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2010

MPD appealed the award to the District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board (“PERB” or “the Board”), and the Board entered an order affirming the award. … Patsy v. Board of Regents of Fla., 457 U.S. 496 , 515 n. 19, 102 S.Ct. 2557 , 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982) (quotation marks omitted).

In re Winstead

69 A.3d 390 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

See Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 558 , 94 S.Ct. 2968 , 41 L.Ed.2d 935 (1974) (“The touchstone of due process is protection of the individual against arbitrary action of government.” … See Dyas v. United States, 376 A.2d 827, 832 (D.C.1977). . Respondent strenuously maintains that she did not engage in the unauthorized practice of law.

Stoddard v. Wynn

168 F. Supp. 3d 124 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2016

Baird v. Gotbaum, 792 F.3d 166, 169 n.2 (D.C. Cir. 2015). Because Mr. Stoddard is pro se, the Court must also consider allegations in his opposition memorandum. Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. … “Thus, if the prosecutors and parole board members are entitled to absolute immunity, dismissal on Rule 12(b)(6) grounds [is] proper.” Patterson, 999 F.2d at 1237.

Parrott v. Government of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 2024

United States v. Kellogg Brown & Root Servs., Inc., 284 F.R.D. 22, 27 (D.D.C. 2012). B. … Plaintiffs were not receptive to this overture and now demand either all data from EvidenceOnQ or, in the alternative, all fields that were produced in an unrelated case, Brown v.

Atherton v. District of Columbia Office of the Mayor

706 F.3d 512 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 8, 2013

Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. Concurring opinion by Circuit Judge ROGERS. BROWN, Circuit Judge: Today we bring resolution to nearly a decade’s worth of litigation. As explained in Atherton v. D.C. … As a threshold matter, Brown does not speak to process.

Proctor v. United States

728 A.2d 1246 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 13, 1999

Rodney Brown, still riled, *1248 allegedly responded, “F— your grandmother!” … Mitchell v.

William Christopher Brown v. Janet Reno, U.S. Attorney General

8 F.3d 71 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 15, 1993

William Christopher BROWN, Appellant, v. Janet RENO, U.S. Attorney General. No. 92-5460. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Oct. 15, 1993.

Branch 6000, National Association of Letter Carriers (United States Postal Service, West Islip, New York) v. National Labor Relations Board

595 F.2d 808 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 19, 1979

Hines v. Anchor Motor Freight, Inc., 424 U.S. 554, 564 , 96 S.Ct. 1048 , 47 L.Ed.2d 231 (1976); Vaca v. Sipes, 386 U.S. 171, 177 , 87 S.Ct. 903 , 17 L.Ed.2d 842 (1967); Ford Motor Co. v. … See also Barton Grands, Ltd. v. N. L. R. B., 529 F.2d 793 (7th Cir. 1976); Gainey v. Brotherhood of Railway Steamship Clerks, 313 F.2d 318 , 324 (3d Cir. 1963); Ferro v.

In re: FBOP Execution Protocol Cases

980 F.3d 123 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 18, 2020

Oregon, 546 U.S. 243 (2006), and FDA v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 133 (2000). … Brown & Williamson, 529 U.S. at 134 (cleaned up); see also United States v.

In Re Kennedy

605 A.2d 600 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1992

PER CURIAM: In this disciplinary case, the Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) found that respondent, Thomas F. … Kennedy v.

Whitlock v. U.S. Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2025

Id.; see Brown v. EPA, 384 F. Supp. 2d 271, 279 (D.D.C. 2005) (“[T]he D.C. … But the mere fact that a pool of potential jurors (or here, Board of Inquiry members) might be exposed to publicity about a case—“even per[v]asive, adverse publicity”— does not satisfy Exemption 7(B)’s high standard.

In Re Slater

627 A.2d 508 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1993

See Skeeter v. Commonwealth, 217 Va. 722 , 232 S.E.2d 756, 758-59 (1977). This court has held that the crime of grand larceny involves moral turpitude per se. … We agree with the Board’s recommendation that respondent be disbarred pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a).

Retail Clerks Union, No. 1550, Retail Clerks International Association, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, and the Kroger Company, Intervenor

330 F.2d 210 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 23, 1964

See, for example, Anderson Lithographic Co., 124 N.L.R.B. 920 (1959), enforced sub nom, N.L.R.B. v. … See Universal Camera Corp. v. N. L. R. B., 340 U.S. 474 , 71 S.Ct. 456 , 95 L.Ed. 456 (1951).

Millican v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 13, 2010

Cir. 2004) (“The Corrections Board statute, 10 U.S.C. § 1552, provides for correction of military records . . . and for judicial review of the Board’s decision”); Chambers v. Green, 544 F. … Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167, 172 (2001); Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (“In matters of statutory construction, the text is our primary guide”).