Case law

Dave v. Lanier

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 3, 2010

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. “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

Edward Ford, Jr. v. Charles Massarone

902 F.3d 309 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 4, 2018

Board of Parole was abolished, the U.S. Parole Commission has conducted parole proceedings for both D.C. and federal offenders. See Daniel v. Fulwood, 766 F.3d 57, 59 (D.C. Cir. 2014). … Ford v. Attorney General, No. 02-302 (D. Colo. Apr. 9, 2004). Res judicata, however, is an “affirmative defense” that “must [be] plead[ed] . . . in the answer to the complaint.” Brown v.

Select Specialty Hospital-Bloomington, Inc. v. Sebelius

774 F. Supp. 2d 332 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2011

Of Los Angeles v. … V. The Board Properly Found That the “New Hospital” Exception Was Unavailable In the Gap Year.

Thorne v. Mattis

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2019

Without “adverse actions appealable to the Board, . . . the Board lack[ed] jurisdiction over [the] discrimination claims.” Id. … Cir. 1995) (quotation marks and alteration omitted), and “ensur[ing] that the federal courts are burdened only when reasonably necessary,” Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 14 (D.C. Cir. 1985).

Paul v. Howard University

754 A.2d 297 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 25, 2000

The President and Board of Trustees review the application only if the Vice President recommends tenure, and tenure may be awarded by the Board of Trustees only upon the recommendation of the President of the University. … Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1247 (D.C.1986). To establish a prima facie case of interference with prospective advantage, Dr.

In Re Bowser

771 A.2d 1002 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2001

iv) the attorney’s understanding of the continuing obligation to keep and maintain records (including copies of all pertinent documents) showing the steps taken by such attorney to comply with Section 14 of Rule XI; and (v) … hearing and report to the Board.

Sanders v. Veneman

131 F. Supp. 2d 225 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2001

In Brown , the D.C. … In Brown , the D.C.

Matter of Lieber

442 A.2d 153 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1982

The Board recommends that Lieber be suspended for a period of six months. … See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 73 , 53 S.Ct. 55, 65 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932); 7A C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 137 (1980).

Moore v. Reid

142 F. Supp. 481 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 1956

Jacobs v. Barc, 6 Cir., 1944, 141 F.2d 480 , certiorari denied 322 U.S. 751 , 64 S.Ct. 1262 , 88 L.Ed. 1581 ; Nave v. … Sanford, 5 Cir., 1941, 123 F.2d 334 , or substitute its judgment for that of the Parole Board, Freedman v. Looney, 10 Cir., 1954, 210 F.2d 56 ; Jones v.

United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-Cio, Local 152 v. National Labor Relations Board, Spencer Foods, Inc., Intervenor. Spencer Foods, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, United Food and Commercial Workers International Union, Afl-Cio, Local 152, Intervenor

768 F.2d 1463 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 15, 1985

P 11,557 UNITED FOOD AND COMMERCIAL WORKERS INTERNATIONAL UNION, AFL-CIO, LOCAL 152, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Spencer Foods, Inc., Intervenor. SPENCER FOODS, INC., Petitioner, v. … The Board is entitled, in making such findings, to consider evidence that is either direct or circumstantial, NLRB v. Link-Belt Co., 311 U.S. 584, 602 , 61 S.Ct. 358, 367 , 85 L.Ed. 368 (1941); Ridgely Mfg. Co. v.

Augustus v. Locke

699 F. Supp. 2d 65 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2010

Instead, the Court concludes this court’s decision in Brown v. … See Saksenasingh v.

Greenhill, Frances v. Spellings, Margaret

482 F.3d 569 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 6, 2007

See Kidwell v. Department of the Army, Board for Correction of Military Records, 56 F.3d 279, 284 (D.C. Cir. 1995). … .”); Brown v. United States, 389 F.3d 1296, 1297 (D.C. Cir. 2004) (holding that a breach of settlement claim should have been brought in the Court of Federal Claims pursuant to the Tucker Act).

Quezada v. Marshall

915 F. Supp. 2d 129 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 15, 2013

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). Such motions allege that a plaintiff has not properly stated a claim; they do not test a plaintiffs ultimate likelihood of success on the merits. Scheuer v. … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 39 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . It is not necessary for the plaintiff to plead all elements of his prima facie case in the complaint, Swierkiewicz v.

Harrison v. United States

435 A.2d 734 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1981

The victim, not realizing that he had been robbed, reported to the officer that he had just lost a brown manila envelope containing $6,000 in cash. … Ohio v.

Harris v. Attorney General of the United States

657 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2009

For this reason and because Browning-Ferris “is not terribly distinct from the primary consideration in the Spirides test,” Dean v. Am. … See Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 14 (D.C.Cir.1985) (“[T]he administrative deadlines [of Title VII] are not jurisdictional.

In Re Hessler

549 A.2d 700 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1988

Clark v. State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161, 168 , 246 P.2d 1, 5 (1952) (quoting Peck v. State Bar, 217 Cal. 47, 51 , 17 P.2d 112, 114 (1932)). … The Board agrees. A.

Connors v. Hi-Heat Coal Co., Inc.

772 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 24, 1991

See, e.g., Board of Trustees v. Lafrenz, 837 F.2d 892, 894 (9th Cir.1988). … But see Berkshire Hathaway, Inc. v.

Sturm v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2025

United States. v. L.A. … ”); Roberts v.

In Re Weisbard

912 A.2d 1178 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2006

The Colorado Supreme Court later upheld the Hearing Board’s denial and imposition of the eighteen-month suspension. In re Weisbard, 25 P.3d 24 (Colo.2001) (en banc). 4 . People v. … People v. Weisbard, 59 P.3d 858 (Colo.2002). 6 . Colorado Rules of Civil Procedure 251.6(a).

United States v. Zabavsky

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 7, 2022

See United States v. Dieter, 429 U.S. 6, 8 (1976) (per curiam); United States v. Healy, 376 U.S. 75, 80 (1964). … United States v.