Case law

Coleman v. Brucker

257 F.2d 661 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 19, 1958

And in Service v. … Accardi v.

Singleton v. District of Columbia Department of Corrections

596 A.2d 56 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1991

Singleton appealed to the Administrator of the Central Facility, who affirmed the housing board’s decision. … Miller Development Co. v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission, 340 A.2d 420, 422 (D.C.1975) *57 (en banc). The proceeding before the prison housing board in Singleton’s case does not pass this test.

In re Tillerson

878 A.2d 1186 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2005

The Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that George E. Tiller-son, III, a member of our Bar, be disbarred. … Till-erson v. United States, Nos. 02-CF-1438 & 03-CO-827, 869 A.2d 368 (D.C.2005) (Memorandum Opinion and Judgment). On March 2, 2005, the court vacated its prior stay.

Rogler v. Biglow

610 F. Supp. 2d 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C.Cir.2002). “[A] complaint needs some information about the circumstances *105 giving rise to the claims.” Aktieselskabet AF 21. Nov. 2001 v. … See Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C.Cir.2008). 3 . Ms. Rogler appears to be attempting to state a cause of action under Bivens v.

Ey v. John McHugh

21 F. Supp. 3d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 28, 2014

See Bloch v. Powell, 227 F. Supp. 2d 25, 31 (D.D.C. 2002) (citing Richards v. INS, 554 F. 2d 1173, 1177 (D.C. Cir. 1977)). … See Escobedo v. Green, 602 F.

Piersall v. Winter

507 F. Supp. 2d 23 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2007

of the Navy acting through the Board] considers it necessary to correct an error or remove an injustice.’ ” Chappell v. … the Board concluded that it was bound by United States v.

Berg v. Claytor

436 F. Supp. 76 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 27, 1977

Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972). … See Codd v. Velger, supra.

Burns Ramirez v. Napolitano

962 F. Supp. 2d 253 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 27, 2013

Speelman v. United States, 461 F. Supp. 2d 71, 73 (D.D.C. 2006). 1 See Brown v. Gen. Servs. … Egan sought review by the Merit Service Protection Board (MSPB). MSPB determined that it had no authority to review the merits of the security clearance determination; on appeal, the Federal Circuit reversed.

Younger v. District of Columbia Public Schools

60 F. Supp. 3d 130 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2014

When she returned in the fall, however, it became clear that her only full-time teaching option was at the Woodson 9th Grade Academy located at Ron Brown Middle School. … See Irwin v.

Fogg v. Garland

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2025

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA MATTHEW FOGG, Plaintiff, v. … ORDERED that [12] Plaintiff’s Motion for Preliminary Injunction is DENIED; it is further ORDERED that [8] Defendant’s motion for a stay is GRANTED; it is further ORDERED that [16] Clarence Brown

Morrison v. Secretary of Defense

760 F. Supp. 2d 15 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 12, 2011

Tuck v. Pan Am. Health Org., 668 F.2d 547, 549 (D.C.Cir. 1981). Instead, the party claiming subject-matter jurisdiction bears the burden of demonstrating that jurisdiction exists. Khadr v. … See, e.g., Fuller v.

In re Owens

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2025

Att’y Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Hamilton, 118 A.3d 958, 973 (Md. 2015) (quoting Att’y Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Zuckerman, 872 A.2d 693, 704 (Md. 2005)); see also Att’y Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. … See Att’y Grievance Comm'n of Md. v.

In re Green

143 A.3d 778 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2016

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Green, 441 Md. 351 , 107 A.3d 1220 (2015) (mem.order); Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Green, 441 Md. 80 , 105 A.3d 500, 510-14 (2014). … We therefore accept the Board’s recommendation that Mr.

Hartman v. Duffy

158 F.R.D. 525 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 23, 1994

Hartman v. Wick, 600 F.Supp. 361 (D.D.C.1984). This modification narrowed the class such that it no longer resembled the “across-the-board” class which the Supreme Court declined to affirm in General Tel. Co. v. … Rita Brown. Ms. Brown’s deposition was admitted into evidence at the liability trial.

Christopher v. Burnet

55 F.2d 527 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 14, 1931

The board affirmed this finding. … Moreover, all the facts were before tho board, and it found therefrom, as it was authorized to do, the correct amount of tho deficiency. Hughes v. Commissioner (C. C. A.) 38 F.(2d) 755 ; Seufert Bros. Co. v. Lucas (C.

Quantum Entertainment, Ltd. v. United States Department of the Interior

597 F. Supp. 2d 146 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 19, 2009

Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. … ,]” this court continues its review of the Board’s decision. Motor Veh. Mfrs. Ass’n, 463 U.S. at 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 ; see also Point Park Univ. v.

Polaroid Corporation v. Horner

197 F. Supp. 950 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 1961

The Board further concluded that the principles of the employer-employee relation as found in the case of Agawam Woolen Company v. … The Board then discussed Agawam Woolen Company v. Jordan, supra, and the line of cases following.

Davis v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

815 F. Supp. 2d 283 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2011

Co. v. … Conservation v.

United States v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.

573 F. Supp. 811 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 8, 1983

United States v. New York Telephone Co., 682 F.2d at 313 . … United States v. New York Telephone Co., 682 F.2d at 316 .

Harnett v. Washington Harbour Condominium Unit Owners' Ass'n

54 A.3d 1165 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2012

In Steinkamp v. … Jackson v.