Case law

Frederick M. McCoy v. Charles H. Mayer, Individually and as Members of the District of Columbia Board of Elections

333 F.2d 151 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 21, 1964

A petition seasonably filed with the Election Board nominated Frederick M. McCoy as a candidate in the Democratic primary May 5, 1964. … The arrangement of the ballot in the manner proposed by the Board is, in our view, within the scope of the authority delegated to the Board by the Congress.

Baker v. Henderson

150 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2001

See Williams-Guice v. Board of Ed., 45 F.3d 161, 162 (7th Cir.1995); McCall v. United States Marshals Service, 36 F.Supp.2d 3, 5 (D.D.C.1999). In this case, the plaintiff had seven days remaining from March 7, 2000. … See Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147, 151 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984).

Clayton v. District of Columbia

117 F. Supp. 3d 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 4, 2015

Brown v. Whole Foods Mkt. Grp. Inc., 789 F.3d 146, 151 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). Although “detailed factual allegations” are not necessary, Bell Atl. Corp. v. … See, e.g., Brown v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 603 F.

In Re Greenberg

762 A.2d 42 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 2000

See Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Greenberg, 354 Md. 325 , 730 A.2d 202 (1999). … This court referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”), which now recommends imposition of reciprocal discipline in the form of a public censure.

Ekemezie v. CVS Pharmacy, Inc.

316 F. Supp. 3d 489 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 5, 2018

On March 25, 2016, Ekemezie sent Local 400's Executive Board a letter appealing the decision. Pl.'s Ex. G. … Cir. 2017) (quoting Browning v. Clinton , 292 F.3d 235 , 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002) ).

Leona E. Schramm v. Physical Therapists Examining Board for the District of Columbia, Cecilia M. Hlebanja v. Physical Therapists Examining Board for the District of Columbia, Robert Waverly Hicks v. Physical Therapists Examining Board for the District of Columbia

394 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 28, 1967

SCHRAMM, Appellant, v. PHYSICAL THERAPISTS EXAMINING BOARD FOR the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee. Cecilia M. HLEBANJA, Appellant, v. PHYSICAL THERAPISTS EXAMINING BOARD FOR the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee. … Robert Waverly HICKS, Appellant, v. PHYSICAL THERAPISTS EXAMINING BOARD FOR the DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, Appellee. No. 20260. No. 20261. No. 20343. United States Court of Appeals District of Columbia Circuit.

In re Juliano

912 A.2d 553 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2006

See United States v. Juliano, Case No. 02-CR-310-3; judgment and sentencing order dated October 10, 2006. … Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation. We therefore accept the Board’s findings and adopt its recommendation. See D.C. Bar R.

Amarillo General Drivers, Warehousemen and Helpers Local Union No. 577 v. National Labor Relations Board

273 F.2d 519 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 17, 1959

General Truck Drivers, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen & Helpers, Local 270 v. N. L. R. B., 102 U.S.App. … If they are raised, they should be dealt with in the first instance by the [Board]." Federal Broadcasting System v. Federal Commun.

Murphy v. Wormuth

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2025

P. 56(a); Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986); Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986). … Therefore, “a challenge to military board of corrections decision must be filed within six years of an adverse review board decision.” Jackson v. Spencer, 313 F. Supp. 3d 302, 309 (D.D.C. 2018).

In Re O'Toole

877 A.2d 151 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2005

Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel has filed an exception to the Board’s recommendation. Therefore, we adopt the recommendation of the Board. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g). … See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. O’Toole, 379 Md. 595, 598-600 , 843 A.2d 50, 52-53 (2004).

California State Board of Optometry v. Federal Trade Commission, National Association of Optometrists and Opticians, Intervenor

924 F.2d 243 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 8, 1991

Brown, 317 U.S. 341 , 63 S.Ct. 307 , 87 L.Ed. 315 (1943), 910 F.2d 976 , the Commission may nonetheless disallow those regulations issued by state and local governmental entities that lie outside the scope of the Parker exemption … , citing Southern Motor Carriers Rate Conference, Inc. v.

Lebidine v. Del Toro

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2025

In reviewing a determination by a military corrections board, the court accords the board great deference. Powers v. Donley, 844 F. Supp. 2d 65, 70 (D.D.C. 2012); Kreis v. … Wallace, 462 U.S. 296, 302 (1983) and Clinton v.

Gibson Greetings, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, Intervenor. International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers v. National Labor Relations Board, Gibson Greetings, Inc., Intervenor

53 F.3d 385 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 19, 1995

P 11,334 GIBSON GREETINGS, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, International Brotherhood of Firemen & Oilers, Intervenor. INTERNATIONAL BROTHERHOOD OF FIREMEN & OILERS, Petitioner, v. … Belknap, Inc. v.

Hobson v. Hansen

5 A.L.R. Fed. 497 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 1968

While petitioners may disagree with the Board’s policy-making, they do not allege that the Board has abused or acted beyond its statutory authority. In Blocker v. … In Wolpe v.

Philip J. Brown v. Brian Seeber

904 F.2d 78 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 13, 1990

Brown v. Seeber, Civ. No. 88-0644 (D.D.C.) (order) (filed May 2, 1988), Appendix to Brief for Appellees (A.App.) 138. … Brown v. Seeber, Civ. No. 88-0644 (D.D.C.) (order) (filed June 6, 1988), A.App. 139 [hereinafter June 6 Order].

Garnes El v. District of Columbia

841 F. Supp. 2d 116 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 26, 2012

Board of Comm’rs of Bryan City v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 409 (1997). 20 Plaintiff in the instant case has offered no such proof. … Dillard, 647 F.Supp.2d 43 (D.D.C. 2009) nor Brown v.

Division 1142, Amalgamated Association of Street Electric Railway and Motor Coach Employees of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

294 F.2d 264 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 12, 1961

The Board’s Failure to Recite and Rule upon the Union’s Exceptions with Specificity The third major contention urged here is an asserted violation of the Administrative Procedure Act and of the Board’s own Regulations in … The Board’s opinion stated that all exceptions pressed before it had been considered, and this, in our view, is sufficient under the circumstances here, to satisfy any applicable requirement of specific format for the Board

In Re Glover-Tonwe

626 A.2d 1387 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1993

United States v. Tonwe, CR 91-21 (March 3, 1992). The Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board) recommends that the respondent be disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. … We agree with the Board that the crime of bribery “inherently involves moral turpitude” and therefore triggers automatic disbarment.

Wallish v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 2025

Perez v. Mortg. Bankers Ass’n, 575 U.S. 92, 102 (2015) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Vermont Yankee Nuclear Power Corp. v. Nat. Res. Def. … See Gubera v. Austin, et al., 1:23-cv-01425, Joint Proposed Order, ECF No. 12 (D.D.C., July 24, 2023); Sines v.

In Re Edwards

990 A.2d 501 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2010

See In re Artis, 883 A.2d 85, 97 (D.C.2005) (“We have held consistently that an attorney who fails to present an issue to the Board waives it and cannot present it for the first time to this court.”); Stockard v. … V.