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).

In re F.T.J.

578 A.2d 1161 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1990

In essence that case merely applied a proposition already set forth in Brown v. … See, in addition to Brown and Waterstaat, supra, Tucker v.

In Re Gailliard

944 A.2d 1109 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2008

Further, the Board recommends that respondent be eligible for readmission only after a showing of fitness to resume the practice of law. We accept the Board’s recommendation. … Because the Supreme Court of South Carolina has held that the crime of ABHAN does not "invariably constitute a crime of moral turpitude,” State v.

Felicity's, Inc. v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs

817 A.2d 825 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2003

See Monaco v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 461 A.2d 1049, 1051-62 (D.C.1983) (failure to provide formal notice required under agency rules is excused where party had timely actual notice); Shiflett v. … Woolworth v. District of Columbia Bd. of Appeals & Review, 579 A.2d 713, 716-17 (D.C.1990).

Bateman v. Crim

34 A.2d 257 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1943

See Brown v. Wood, 201 N.C. 309 , 160 S.E. 281 . … The following cases illustrate the attitude of various courts on this question: Hutchinson v. Knowles, 108 Vt. 195 , 184 A. 705 ; Brown v. Wood, 201 N.C. 309 , 160 S.E. 281 ; Epperson v.

Hill v. Geren

597 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2009

and in good faith.’ ” Frizelle v. … That argument appears nowhere in the Board’s decision, contrary to the “ ‘fundamental rule of administrative law ” that this Court must judge the Board’s decision solely by the grounds invoked by the Board. Poole v.

International Union Of Electrical, Radio And Machine Workers, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

367 F.2d 333 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 30, 1966

367 F.2d 333 125 U.S.App.D.C. 107 INTERNATIONAL UNION OF ELECTRICAL, RADIO AND MACHINE WORKERS, AFL-CIO, Petitioner v. … In so doing the Board stated: 'We are, we believe, precluded' from re-evaluating the reprimand.

Rapid City Regional Hospital v. Sebelius

681 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 2010

Holy Land Found. for Relief and Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156 (D.C.Cir.2003) (citing Camp v. Pitts, 411 U.S. 138, 142 , 93 S.Ct. 1241 , 36 *60 L.Ed.2d 106 (1973)); (Richards v. … Ass’n of Virginia, Inc. v.

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.

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).

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).

Weaver v. Pettiford

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2014

FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ) MICHAEL ANTHONY WEAVER, ) ) PETITIONER, ) ) v. … Date: June 19, 2014 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

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.

Scoville Street Corporation v. DISTRICT TLC TRUST, 1996

857 A.2d 1071 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 2004

See Board of Comm’rs v. Timroth, 87 P.3d 102 (Colo.2004); Buk Lhu v. Dignoti, 431 Mass. 292 , 727 N.E.2d 73 (2000); Goldberg v. Frick Elec. Co., 363 Md. 683 , 770 A.2d 182 (2001); Chicago, St. Paul, Min. & Omaha Ry. … Here, the alleged agreement was not in writing and, unlike the situation in Brown v.

Cohen v. Basiliko

106 A.2d 142 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1954

Burrows Motor Co. v. Davis, D.C.Mun.App., 76 A.2d 163 ; Gunn v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 59 A.2d 518 ; Trans-Lux Radio City Corp. v. Service Parking Corp., D.C.Mun.App., 54 A.2d 144 . See also Sheets v. … Gunn v. Brown, supra, 59 A.2d at page 519 .

United States Casualty Co. v. District of Columbia ex rel. North American Cement Corp.

107 F.2d 652 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 9, 1939

United States to the use of Peeler, 1916, 240 U.S. 214 , 36 S.Ct. 321 , 60 L.Ed. 609 ; Robinson v. United States on Behalf of and for Use of Brown-Ketcham Iron Works, 2 Cir., 1918, 251 F. 461 ; Antrim Lumber Co. v. … Brown-Ketcham Iron Works v. Robinson, 2 Cir., 1914, 214 F. 38 — Secretary of the Treasury; Robinson v.

Jackson v. District of Columbia

710 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 20, 1989

This failure perhaps derives from their citation to Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1244 (D.C.App.1986), as controlling authority for this case. … In Dellums v.

Ludlow v. Mabus

793 F. Supp. 2d 352 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 24, 2011

LEGAL STANDARD Decisions of the military review boards are, like other federal agency action, subject to review under the APA, Frizelle v. … Bioscience, Inc. v.

In Re Mayers

943 A.2d 1170 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 20, 2008

PER CURIAM: The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”), in accord with the Hearing Committee, has found that respondent, Oscar S. … (United States v. Mayers, D.D.C. no. 1:04-CR-00567). 3 .

Truck Drivers and Helpers Local No. 728, Affiliated With the International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen and Helpers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, Overnite Transportation Company, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. Overnite Transportation Company

364 F.2d 682 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 28, 1966

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Overnite Transportation Company, Intervenor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. OVERNITE TRANSPORTATION COMPANY, Respondent. No. 19703. No. 19720. … Amalgamated Clothing Workers v.