Case law

Firemen's Insurance Co. of Washington v. Belts

455 A.2d 908 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 1983

Day v. United Securities Corp., 272 A.2d 448 (D.C.App.1970). In Castro v. … Dark Brown, Hair Brown.” Several amended affidavits were thereafter filed. 3 . Appellee claimed that he was unaware of the suit until he received notice of the oral examination sometime in June 1981.

Donovan v. Clarke

222 F. Supp. 632 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 17, 1963

Zahn et al. v. Board of Public Works et al., 274 U.S. 325, 328 , 47 S.Ct. 594 , 71 L.Ed. 1074 (1927); Euclid, Ohio v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388, 395 , 47 S.Ct. 114 , 71 L.Ed. 303 . … In Pet-rarca v. Zoning Board of Review, 78 R.I. 130 , 80 A.2d 156 (1957), the court held as follows: “Petitioner’s complaint that the-board failed to give any reason for its-decision is justified.

Beberman v. Blinken

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 11, 2024

Further, the Board’s “determination should be read in context.” U.S. Sugar Corp. v. EPA, 830 F.3d 579, 642 (D.C. Cir. 2016). … Co., LLC v.

Elliott v. Harris

24 App. D.C. 11 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 24, 1904

In the case of Wilkes v. … United States v. Bainbridge, 1 Mason, 71 , Fed. Cas. No. 14,497; Wassum v. Feeney, 121 Mass. 93, 95 , 23 Am. Rep. 258 .

In Re Federal National Mortgage Ass'n Securities, Derivative, & "ERISA" Litigation

503 F. Supp. 2d 9 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 31, 2007

See Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244, 254 (Del. 2000); Grimes v. … See Orman v.

Darab v. United States

623 A.2d 127 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1993

In Riley v. … The evidence showed that the Board of Governors vested Dr.

In Re Pelkey

962 A.2d 268 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2008

REID, Associate Judge: The Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) has recommended that respondent Bruce A. … In re Gil, 656 A.2d 303, 305 (D.C.1995) (quoting Fredericks v. United States, 306 A.2d 268, 270 (D.C.1973)). 20 . In re Gil, supra note 19, 656 A.2d at 306 (quoting In re Kennedy, 542 A.2d 1225, 1228 (D.C.1988)). 21 .

Horn v. Huddle

647 F. Supp. 2d 55 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 2009

In re Sealed Case, 494 F.3d at 159 (Brown, J.) (dissenting in part) (citing Bareford v. Gen. Dynamics Corp., 973 F.2d 1138, 1144 (5th Cir.1992)). … Brown’s Resp. [468] at 2.)

Associated Press v. Federal Bureau of Investigation

265 F. Supp. 3d 82 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 30, 2017

(Declaration of Jay Ward Brown (“Brown Deck”) Ex. J, at AP-19-AP-23). … As the court in Mayer Brown LLP v.

In Re Krouner

920 A.2d 1039 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2007

We review the Board’s recommendation in accordance with D.C. Bar R. … If The Board decides that it does, that is the end of the inquiry; The Board must recommend disbarment. (Emphasis in original). 6 .Respondent’s reliance on United States v.

Kingsbury v. United States

537 A.2d 208 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1988

See Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161 , 97 S.Ct. 2221 , 53 L.Ed. 2d 187 (1977); Parker v. United States, 476 A.2d 173 (D.C.1984); Arnold v. United States, 467 A.2d 136 (D.C.1983). … The government seeks to distinguish Arnold’s factual context analysis, contending that this court erroneously thought itself bound to do so by Brown v. Ohio, supra.

Magneson v. Mabus

174 F. Supp. 3d 114 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2016

Magneson’s case stands in contrast to Dickson v. Secretary of Defense, where the court found a military corrections board’s decision-making flawed. … 12 Transp., Inc. v.

Brooks v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

453 A.2d 812 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1982

See Howell v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 51 Pa.Commw. 26, 413 A.2d 782 (1980); Bigley v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa.Commw. 569, 393 A.2d 1312 (1978). … No medical evidence was presented, Howell v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra, and no request for transfer was made, Bigley v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra.

Bonds v. Heyman

950 F. Supp. 1202 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 14, 1997

Love v. Pullman Co., 404 U.S. 522 , 92 S.Ct. 616 , 30 L.Ed.2d 679 (1972); Brown v. General Services Administration, 425 U.S. 820 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). … In Gilley v.

Ace American Insurance Company v. Federal Crop Insurance Corporation

209 F. Supp. 3d 343 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2016

v. Merrill, 332 U.S. 380, 384 (1947). … Anderson v.

District of Columbia Workmen's Compensation Act. v. Frank Kelly, Inc.

554 F.2d 1075 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 1976

Bruner v. United States, supra note 17; Smallwood v. Gallardo, supra note 17 ; Hallowell v. Commons, supra note 17 ; Insurance Co. v. … Udall, 123 U.S.App.D.C. 301 , 359 F.2d 615 (1965). 28 O'Leary v. Brown-Pacific Maxon, Inc., 340 U.S. 504, 508 , 71 S.Ct. 470, 472 , 95 L.Ed. 483, 487 (1951); Cardillo v. Liberty Mut. Ins.

In re Estate of Brown

930 A.2d 249 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2007

Brown’s attorney moved into evidence the listing agreement for the property. After Mr. Brown’s attorney called as a witness the daughter-in-law of the deceased, Ms. Smith inquired as to the nature of her testimony. … (citing Richardson v. Green, 528 A.2d 429, 436 (D.C.1987)).

Elizabeth Schacht v. Steven Lieberman

103 F.4th 794 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 4, 2024

Olivares v. TSA, 819 F.3d 454, 463 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (quoting Tourus Recs., Inc. v. DEA, 259 F.3d 731, 737 (D.C. … Taking the Board’s order as a whole, the Board adequately explained why it believed no alternative penalty would redress Dr. Schacht’s unprofessional conduct. See Robinson v.

Clarke v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

904 F. Supp. 2d 11 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 14, 2012

Brown, there were a number of occasions when I walked into Amy’s office where I saw her interacting with Shawn Brown one-on-one. She always spoke to her respectfully. … Brown was frequently late,4 so the two cannot be deemed “similarly situated” for the purposes of Title VII. See Neuren v. Adduci, Mastriani, Meeks & Schill, 43 F.3d 1507, 1514 (D.C.

Drevaleva v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 10, 2025

But discrimination claims like Drevaleva’s do not independently give the Board jurisdiction. See Cruz v. Dep’t of Navy, 934 F.2d 1240, 1245–46 (Fed. … The Board does not have jurisdiction over probationary employees. See Castle v. Rubin, 78 F.3d 654, 658 (D.C. Cir. 1996).