Case law

Pee v. United States

274 F.2d 556 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 25, 1959

Upon being arrested (two of these three on July 3, 1957, and the other one the next day) they were sent to the Receiving Home, maintained by the Board of Pub- *558 lie Welfare. 1 On July 18th the Juvenile Court waived jurisdiction … Tennessee — Childress v. State, 133 Tenn. 121 , 179 S.W. 643 , 644 (1915). Texas — State v. Thomasson, 154 Tex. 151 , 275 S.W.2d 463 (1955). Utah — Mill v. Brown, 31 Utah 473 , 88 P. 609, 613 (1907).

Tom We Shung v. McGrath

103 F. Supp. 507 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 1952

Saclarides et al. v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 180 F.2d 687, 689 . . McGrath v. Kristensen, 340 U.S. 162, 169 , 71 S.Ct. 224 , 95 L.Ed. 173 . . Tulsidas v. … Ed. 969 ; Knauff v. Staughnessy, 338 U. S. 537 ,. 543, 70 S.Ct. 309 , 94 L.Ed. 317 . . O’Connell ex rel. Kwong Han Foo v. Ward, 1 Cir., 126 E.2d 615, 620.

Horsey v. United States Department of State

170 F. Supp. 3d 256 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2016

v. … DATE: March 22, 2016 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

United States v. Diggs

161 F. App'x 7 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 16, 2005

. §§ 841 (a)(1) and 860(a) was tainted by the Government’s knowing use of perjured testimony at his trial, requiring the conviction to be set aside under United States v. … In fact, Diggs contends, Brown had not been “rehired” by MPD in any official capacity, but rather was serving only as an unpaid consultant. We conclude that this case is controlled by United States v.

Robert W. Baker v. Thomas R. Sard and Donald J. Sheehy. Robert W. Baker v. Thomas R. Sard, Chairman, Board of Parole

420 F.2d 1342 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 15, 1969

United States v. Evans, 2 F. 147 (C.C. W.D.Tenn.1880). See Pritchett v. … Edwards v. United States, 286 F.2d 704, 708 (9th Cir. 1961). 3 . Fed.R.App.P. 23(b); Sup.Ct.R. 49(2). 4 . Reiff v. United States, 288 F.2d 887 (9th Cir. 1961) ; Bruce v. United States, 256 F. Supp. 28 (D.D.C.1967). 5 .

In Re Morrell

859 A.2d 644 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2004

XI, § 16(d)(1) and (2), as interpreted in Board Rule 9.1(a)(i) through (v). These factors were first explained in our decision in In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215 (D.C.1985). … See M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1971). 6 . There is a slight difference between factor (3) in the Board’s instructions on the reinstatement questionnaire submitted by Mr.

Joseph C. Steffan v. William J. Perry, Secretary of Defense

41 F.3d 677 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 22, 1994

Goldman v. Weinberger, 475 U.S. 503, 507-09 , 106 S.Ct. 1310, 1313-14 , 89 L.Ed.2d 478 (1986); Brown v. Glines, 444 U.S. 348, 354 , 100 S.Ct. 594, 599 , 62 L.Ed.2d 540 (1980) (iquoting Parker v. … Noto v.

Jovanovic v. US-Algeria Business Council

561 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2008

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 244 (D.C.Cir.2002). … See Hill v. U.S.

In re Butler

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2025

69 A.3d 390, 397 n.9 (D.C. 2013) (Bar Counsel was not required to call expert witness because whether respondent’s communications were false or misleading did not “require[] technical or specialized knowledge”); Liu v. … See generally, e.g., Miller v. United States, 209 A.3d 75, 80 (D.C. 2019) (declining to address issue that was not adequately briefed on appeal). C.

Bartel v. Federal Aviation Administration

617 F. Supp. 190 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 18, 1985

Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820, 835 , 96 S.Ct. 1961, 1969 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976); Kizas v. Webster, 707 F.2d 524, 542 (D.C.Cir.1983); Davis v. … See Virginia State Board of Pharmacy v. Virginia Citizens Consumer Council, 425 U.S. 748 , 96 S.Ct. 1817 , 48 L.Ed.2d 346 (1976); Paton v. LaPrade, 524 F.2d 862 (3d Cir.1975). 17 . Houchins v.

Nuskey v. Lambright

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 25, 2009

Jones-Brown. See Cones v. Shalala, 199 F.3d 512, 521 (D.C. … See Timeliness Opinion at 3 (quoting Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 148 n.1 (1984) (per curiam) (citing Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(e)); Powell v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 238 F.

Browne v. Dyson

38 App. D.C. 5 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 7, 1911

been awarded priority to Browne.” … Couper and Somers v. Bannister, 1904 C. D. 424; s. c. 112, Off. Gaz. 1480; Griffiths v. Taylor, 91 M. S. A. D. 1908. In both cases there were but two opposing parties.

Castillo v. United States

75 A.3d 157 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2013

Brown v. United States, 27 A.3d 127, 131 (D.C.2011) (internal quotation marks omitted). … (the time when Brown was found) than to noon” because “carpet squished with blood” and “Brown had not bled out despite his gaping wounds”); Simmons v.

In Re Untalan

619 A.2d 978 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 1993

United States v. Carrollo, 30 P.Supp. 3, 6 (W.D.Mo.1939) cited with approval in In re Shorter, 570 A.2d 760, 765 (D.C.1990). … dispositions for similar misconduct, available to us. 3 .Under the aegis of North Carolina v.

In Re Eberhart

678 A.2d 1023 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 1996

This matter comes before us on the report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) that respondent be disbarred pursuant to D.C.Code § ll-2503(a). … Va.Code Ann. § 18.5-111 (Miehie 1995); see Zoretic v.

District of Columbia Bar v. Kleindienst

345 A.2d 146 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1975

The Board found specifically that respondent “was guilty of direct and repeated misrepresentations in answering persistent inquiries about White House involvement in Justice Department litigation against ITT.” *147 The Board … Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 , 37 S.Ct. 377 , 61 L.Ed. 585 ; Matter of Durant, 80 Conn. 140, 147 , 67 A. 497 , 10 Ann.Cas. 539. Whenever the condition is broken the privilege is lost.

Michael B. Anderson v. Melvin R. Laird, Secretary of Defense of the United States of America

466 F.2d 283 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 18, 1972

And in Board of Education v. … Fox v. Brown, 402 F.2d 837 (2d Cir. 1968), cert. denied, 394 U.S. 938 , 89 S.Ct. 1219 , 22 L.Ed.2d 471 (1969). . Raderman v. Kaine, supra note 10 , 411 F.2d 1102 ; Smith v. Resor, supra note 10, 406 F.2d 141 ; Byrne v.

Nader v. McAuliffe

593 F. Supp. 2d 95 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2009

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); Holy Land Found, for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . The court’s resolution of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion represents a ruling on the merits with res judicata effect. Haase v.

International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Liberty Coach Company, Inc., Intervenor. Liberty Coach Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio, Intervenor

418 F.2d 1191 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 22, 1969

Leedom v. … B. v.

In Re Olekanma A. Ekekwe-Kauffman

210 A.3d 775 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2019

See Manago v. District of Columbia, 934 A.2d 925 (D.C. 2007). When Ms. Ekekwe- Kauffman notified Ms. … Curtis v. Gordon, 980 A.2d 1238, 1246 (D.C. 2009) (quoting Amidon v. Amidon, 280 A.2d 82, 84 (D.C. 1971)).