Case law

Busey v. Washington

225 F. Supp. 416 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 1964

In 1962, in Drake v. … Co. v.

United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, and Local 4203, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

294 F.2d 256 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 10, 1961

This case is before us on a petition to review an order of the National Labor Relations Board and a cross-petition by the Board for enforcement of that order. … Seafarers International Union, Etc. v. N. L. R. B., 105 U.S.App.D.C. 211 , 265 F.2d 585 (1959). 5 . See Communications Workers of America A.F.L.C.I.O. v. N. L. R.

University Of Texas M.D. Ander v. Kathleen Sebelius

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 17, 2011

See Chevron, U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 467 U.S. 837 (1984). … In prior proceedings with other hospitals, moreover, the Board had not required an express showing of the net financial impact of the different drugs. See Belmont Hills Hospital v.

United States Ex Rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co.

270 F.R.D. 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 14, 2010

The first motion was jointly filed by defendants Halliburton Company, Kellogg Brown and Root, Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., KBR Technical Services Inc., Kellogg Brown & Root Engineering Corporation, Kellogg … Brown & Root International, Inc.

Hockaday v. D. C. Department of Employment Services

443 A.2d 8 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1982

We need to know what standard the Board applied in order to fulfill our review function without usurping the Board’s role. See Dietrich v. … Petitioner does not argue that the Board could not apply the statute absent implementing regulations. 14 . Petitioner cites Deiss v.

Ware v. United States

672 A.2d 557 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1996

Johnson, supra, 540 A.2d at 1091 ; see Alabama v. White, supra, 496 U.S. at 332 , 110 S.Ct. at 2417 (upholding Terry stop when “significant aspects of the [anonymous tip] were verified”); Brown v. … See Brown, supra, 590 A.2d at 1016 (“an anonymous telephone tip is of the “weakest reliability’ ”); Lawson v.

Jones v. Braxton

647 A.2d 1116 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 9, 1994

See White v. Hyman, 647 A.2d 1175 (D.C.1994); see also Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462-63 , 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1909-10 , 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989); Olim v. … Bennett v. Ridley, supra, 633 A.2d at 826 .

Howard v. Hey

18 App. D.C. 142 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 2, 1901

Hisey v. Peters, 6 App. D. C. 68, 71; Hien v. Buhoup, 11 App. D. C. 293; Glenn v. Adams, 12 App. D. C. 175, 178; Esty v. Newton, 14 App. D. C. 50, 53. … Warner v. Smith, 13 App. D. C. 111, 115; Traver v. Brown, 14 App. D. C. 34, 41; Esty v. Newton, 14 App. D. C. 50, 54; Fefel v. Stocker, 17 App. D. C. 317; Reichenbach v. Kelley, idem, 333; Beals v. Finkenbiner, 12 App.

Thomas B. Roelofs v. Secretary of the Air Force

628 F.2d 594 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 6, 1980

Brown, 449 F.Supp. 207 (N.D.Cal.1978) (Navy regulation mandating discharge upon finding of homosexual conduct). Cf. International Harvester Company v. Ruckelshaus, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 411, 437 , 478 F.2d 615 , 641 (D.C. … As described by the majority, neither the Discharge Board of Officers nor the administrative review board offered any explanation for its actions. . See, e. g., Burlington Truck Lines v.

Kenneth M. Brown, Riggie A. Lott and All Other Inmates That Have Been Subject to the Conditions in the Adjustment Unit v. United States of America

742 F.2d 1498 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 2, 1984

See also Board of Regents v. … Board of Educ., 635 F.2d 971 , 973 n. 2 (2d Cir.1980), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 1123 , 102 S.Ct. 970 , 71 L.Ed.2d 109 (1981); Willis v. Reddin, 418 F.2d 702 (9th Cir.1969); Davis v.

Reed v. Gray

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2015

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA _________________________________ ) NICCOLA REED, ) ) Plaintiff, ) v. … Date: February 19, 2015 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Matter of Anderson

474 A.2d 145 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1984

The suspension was based on Respondent’s guilty plea to the crime of false pretenses 1 , District of Columbia Code § 22-1301 2 , in United States of America v. Floyd W. Anderson, Criminal No. 81-00394 (DCCA 1982). … Upon notice, Respondent has not filed any pleadings with the Board.

Turner v. Afro-American Newspaper Co.

572 F. Supp. 2d 71 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 20, 2008

Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). … Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . Courts strictly observe the 90-day time limit for filing employment discrimination claims, even where a pro se plaintiff is involved. Smith v.

Cornucopia Institute v. Agricultural Marketing Service

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 10, 2018

AMS oversees the Board. … Cotton v. Heyman, 63 F.3d 1115, 1120 (D.C. Cir. 1995), quoting Fenster v. Brown, 617 F.2d 740, 744 (D.C. Cir. 1979). As already discussed, the litigation spurred the agency to produce responsive records.

Federal Trade Commission v. Cockrell

431 F. Supp. 558 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 18, 1977

FTC v. MacArthur, 532 F.2d 1135, 1140 (7th Cir. 1976). The Court agrees with the Commission that the case of FTC v. … See, e. g., FTC v. Browning, supra; FTC v. Sherry, 1969 CCH Trade Cases ¶ 72,906 (D.D.C. 1969).

Futrell v. Department of Labor Federal Credit Union

816 A.2d 793 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 2003

See *807 Dantley v. Howard Univ., 801 A.2d 962 (D.C.2002); see Roberts v. Howard Univ., 740 A.2d 16 , 19 n. 1 (D.C.1999). … See Sere v.

Norman v. United States

20 App. D.C. 494 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1902

, wilfully, and with malice aforethought did kill and murder the said Annie Brown. … Coffin v. United States, 162 U. S. 664 . Moreover, the instruction numbered three was simply a variation in language, and not in substance, of the instructions numbered one and two granted on behalf of the defendant.

In re Murdter

131 A.3d 355 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2016

XI, § 9(h)(1); Board Rule 13.7. … BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY v By: /TRB/ Thomas R. Bundy, III Dated: February 24, 2015 All members of the Board concur in this Report and Recommendation, except Jason E.

Cornish v. District of Columbia

67 F. Supp. 3d 345 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 16, 2014

Bowden v. United States, 106 F.3d 433, 437 (D.C. Cir. 1997) (citing Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 13 (D.C. Cir. 1985)). … In support, she relies principally on Brown v. Bronx Cross Cnty. Med. Grp., 834 F.

In re Andre P. Barber

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2015

State Bar v. Attorney-Respondent, 367 So. 2d 179, 185 (Miss. 1979); In re Baun, 232 N.W.2d 621, 624-25 (Mich. 1975); cf. Littlejohn v. … United States v. Wong, 431 U.S. 174, 178 (1977). 5 Mr.