Case law

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.

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.

District of Columbia Hospital Ass'n v. District of Columbia

73 F. Supp. 2d 8 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 1999

Allen v. McCurry, 449 U.S. 90, 94 (1980). Res Judicata does not, however, bar a party or parties from relitigating a previously asserted claim dismissed on justiciability grounds. Cutler v. … Brown’s. Ms.

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].

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 Hardwick

859 A.2d 1063 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2004

Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. … XI, § 11(d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”).

Carpet, Linoleum, Soft Tile And Resilient Floor Covering Layers, Local Union No. 419, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board

429 F.2d 747 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 12, 1970

National Woodwork Manufacturers v. … Workers, Local 501 v.

Daniel ex rel. M.H. v. District of Columbia

174 F. Supp. 3d 532 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

Brown v. Dist. of Columbia, 80 F.Supp.3d 90, 99 (D.D.C.2015); Hensley, 461 U.S. at 435 n. 11, 103 S.Ct. 1933 . … See Dist. of Columbia v. Doe, 611 F.3d 888, 890 (D.C.Cir.2010). . Plaintiffs’ invoice reflects work done by oth- ' er individuals, including other Brown & Associates attorneys and 'an educational advocate. Pi.

Betty G. Browning v. Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives

793 F.2d 380 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 8, 1986

GINSBURG, Circuit Judge: The court’s opinion in Browning v. Clerk, U.S. House of Representatives, 789 F.2d 923 (D.C.Cir.1986), preserves this circuit’s prior decision in Walker v. … Assuring accurate testimony in such an important field is “directly related to the due functioning of the legislative process____” Browning *382 v. Clerk, U.S.

Lewis v. United States

389 A.2d 306 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1978

(Board). … Jacobs v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, supra at 286 n.5.

Noel v. Olds

138 F.2d 581 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 11, 1943

He tendered to the testator the services of a member of the Duke Endowment Board to prepare a new will. 1 He furnished to the testator the services of the architect of Duke University, who drew plans for the proposed gallery … District Unemployment Compensation Board, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 282 . 284, 288, 131 F.2d 337, 339, 343 , cert. denied, 317 U.S. 693 , 63 S.Ct. 324 , 87 L.Ed. —; Bauer v. Myers, 8 Cir., 244 F. 902 . 909; John v.

United States Ex Rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co.

241 F. Supp. 3d 37 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2017

Barko v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 135 S. Ct. 1163 (2015); U.S. ex rel. Barko v. Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 136 S. Ct. 823 (2016). III. LEGAL STANDARDS A. … In re Kellogg Brown & Root, Inc., 756 F.3d 754, 764 (D.C. Cir. 2014) (KBR 1) (quoting Upjohn Co. v.

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).

Voegeli v. Phelan

District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 2025

Saint-Fleur v. McHugh, 83 F. … Corp. v. Sebelius, 14 903 F. Supp. 2d 39, 58–59 n.10 (D.D.C. 2012). No doubt “the Board’s reasoning could . . . be clearer and more thorough.” McKinney v.

In re Brown

68 F.R.D. 172 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 17, 1975

This Court summarily denied Brown’s petition in August of last year, but Brown then motioned for reconsideration of the summary denial, and this Court granted his motion. … Lafferty v. District of Columbia, 107 U.S. App.D.C. 318, 277 F.2d 348 , n. 6 at 351 (1960).

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) ).

Lewis v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2024

First, he alleges that V. Wilson and Lora Brown, Department of Education employees, acted wrongfully by claiming that his loans had not been discharged by his 2005 bankruptcy. Id. at 42–45. … Wilson and Brown.

In Re Stiller

725 A.2d 533 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1999

The Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”), in Bar Docket No. 430-88, concluded that Mr. … In January 1994 the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ratzlaf v.

Fritch v. U.S. Department of State

220 F. Supp. 3d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2016

Inc. v. Thompson, 269 F.3d 1077, 1083 (D.C. Cir. 2001) (citing cases). “[T]he court’s review is limited to the administrative record,” Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. Supp. 96, 105 (D.D.C. 1995) (citing Camp v. … to its earlier decisions, the court has jurisdiction to review the Board’s decision on that narrow ground, see Jicarilla Apache Nation v.

Deskins v. Barry

729 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 4, 1989

Baldwin County Welcome Center v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984); Josiah-Faeduwor v. Communications Satellite Corp. 785 F.2d 344 (D.C.Cir.1986). … See, e.g., Patsy v. Board of Regents of the State of Florida, 457 U.S. 496 , 102 S.Ct. 2557 , 73 L.Ed.2d 172 (1982); Gilliam v. City of Omaha, 459 F.2d 63 (8th Cir.1972); Blake v.