Case law

Tutt v. Doby

265 A.2d 304 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 5, 1970

Brown v. Southall Realty Company, D.C.App., 237 A.2d 834, 836 (1968); Bess v. David, D.C.Mun.App., 140 A.2d 316, 317 (1958); David v. Nemerofsky, D.C.Mun.App., 41 A.2d 838, 839 (1945). … Brown v. Southall Realty Company, supra 237 A.2d at 836, n. 2 .

Boston Edison Co. v. Federal Power Commission

557 F.2d 845 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 17, 1977

A similar situation was presented in Golden Holiday Tours v. … Civil Aeronautic Board, 13 in which the Board had rejected a tour prospectus amendment because of a recently adopted regulation that amendments be filed fifteen days before the effective date, following a long-standing flexible

Parnigoni v. St. Columba's Nursery School

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 29, 2010

Parnigoni that the Board was ‘nervous’ about [Mr. Parnigoni’s] 2004 conviction.” Id. ¶ 20. The Board’s apprehension apparently stemmed from the fact that “Mr. … Lyles v. Micenko, 404 F. Supp. 2d 182, 187 (D.D.C. 2005) (quoting Homan v. Goyal, 711 A.2d 812, 818 (D.C. 1998) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted)); see Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 248 (D.C.

Owens v. Tiber Island Condominium Ass'n

373 A.2d 890 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 10, 1977

At the next Board meeting on March 26, 1974, Mr. … Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464 , 82 S.Ct. 486 , 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962). There are no factual issues in dispute here.

Hughes-Turner v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Services

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2022

Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 83 A.3d 739, 743 n.6 (D.C. 2014) (citations omitted). “Non-schedule” permanent partial benefits are capped at 500 weeks. D.C. … See Hiligh v.

In Re Sumner

762 A.2d 528 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2000

The Board recognized that where neither Bar Counsel nor the respondent opposes the imposition of the identical discipline, the Board’s inquiry is a limited one. In re Spann, 711 A.2d 1262, 1265 (D.C.1998). … Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 799 , 92 S.Ct. 2562 , 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 765 n. 9, 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); United States v.

District of Columbia v. Organization for Environmental Growth, Inc.

700 A.2d 185 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1997

Citing Kalvar Corp. v. … The Board relied heavily on Torncello v.

Federal Trade Commission v. Surescripts, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2023

In support, Surescripts cites Brooke Group Ltd. v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 509 U.S. 209 (1993). … Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 325 (1962).

Urciolo v. Washington

305 A.2d 252 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1973

Trinity Methodist Church, South v. Federal Radio Com’n, 61 App.D.C. 311 , 62 F.2d 850 , cert. denied, 284 U.S. 685 , 52 S.Ct. 204 , 76 L.Ed. 579 (1932). See also Keyes v. … Berrigan v. Sigler, Chairman of the Board of Parole, et al., 475 F.2d 918 (D.C.Cir., 1978). .

In Re Thomas

740 A.2d 538 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 1999

California Bankers Ass’n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 55 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 , 39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974) (citing Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 , 93 S.Ct. 611 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973); Johnson v. … Area Transit Auth. v. Reid, 666 A.2d 41, 44 (D.C.1995); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Haden, 418 A.2d 1078, 1081 (D.C.1980).

Southerland v. Office of Disability Adjudication and Review

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 4, 2015

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ________________________________ ) ANGELA RENEE SOUTHERLAND, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. … DATE: August 4, 2015 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge 1

In re Gumbinner

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2025

underlying the 1 See Snyder v. … XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.”

Wilkinson v. Legal Services Corp.

27 F. Supp. 2d 32 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 1998

Brown, 419 F.2d 714, 718 (D.C.Cir.1969) (relying on Accardi); Coleman v. Brucker, 257 F.2d 661, 662-63 (D.C.Cir.1958) (same). 2. … See Board of Regents of State Colleges v.

Daniels v. United States

947 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 30, 2013

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A. … did not make certain determinations that it was required by regulation to make and did not “replicate central selection boards . . . to the maximum extent possible” as it was required by regulation to do); Bond v.

Priority Air Dispatch, Inc. v. National Transportation Safety Board and Alexander P. Butterfield, Administrator of the Federal Aviation Administration

514 F.2d 1335 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 19, 1975

See, e. g., Administrator v. Saupp, 45 C.A.B. 989 (1966); Administrator v. Proud, 42 C.A.B. 1014 (1965); Administrator v. Light, 40 C.A.B. 1008 (1964); Administrator v. … See, e. g., Administrator v. Jackson, 1 N.T. S.B. 2027 (1972) (instrument rating); Administrator v. Stroupe, 1 N.T.S.B. 1708 (1972) (pow-erplant rating); Administrator v.

Pietersen v. US Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 21, 2024

TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 141 S. Ct. 2190, 2203 (2021). Brown has satisfactorily alleged that he suffered a concrete injury from the denial of Pietersen’s K-1 visa applications. … Compl. ¶¶ 109–110, that the denial of Pietersen’s visa has “placed an unjustifiable burden on” Brown’s rights under the Fifth Amendment and First Amendment, Kleindienst v. Mandel, 408 U.S. 753, 763 (1972).

In Re Ontell

593 A.2d 1038 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1991

Based on the mitigating factors the Board recognized, we conclude that the Board’s recommended sanction — a thirty-day suspension — is not inappropriate. V. … Trial Lawyers v.

St. Vincent's Medical Center v. Burwell

222 F. Supp. 3d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 21, 2016

University v. … Shalala, 512 U.S. at 512 , 114 S.Ct. 2381 , quoting Bowles v. Seminole Rock & Sand Co., 325 U.S. 410, 414 , 65 S.Ct. 1215 , 89 L.Ed. 1700 (1945) and Gardebring v.

In Re Thompson

579 A.2d 218 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1990

The Board cited with approval an opinion of the Maryland Court of Appeals, Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. … But a formal, mandatory re-buttable presumption is, as the Supreme Court has said, a “troublesome evidentiary device,” County Court of Ulster County v.

In Re Fitzgerald

982 A.2d 743 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2009

DeGroot, 939 A.2d 664 , 670 n. 5 (D.C.2008) (citing Duvall v. … Strickland v.