Case law

First Student, Inc. v. Nat'l Labor Relations Bd.

935 F.3d 604 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 3, 2019

Leasing Co. v. NLRB, 831 F.3d 534, 546 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (citing NLRB v. Katz, 369 U.S. 736, 743 (1962)). The “perfectly clear” successor doctrine has its origins in the Supreme Court’s decision in NLRB v. … e.g., Carpenters & Millwrights, Local Union 2471 v.

Smith v. Moore

749 A.2d 132 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2000

Florida v. … See Tyler v. United States, 705 A.2d 270, 273 (D.C.1997) (en banc); Teachey v. Carver, 736 A.2d 998, 1002-03 (D.C.1999); Abdullah v. Roach, 668 A.2d 801, 804-05 (D.C.1995). .

In Re Smith

817 A.2d 196 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2003

The Board on Professional Responsibility has recommended that we disbar respondent, Hendrith V. Smith, from practicing law in the District of Columbia. … The Board accordingly was correct in rejecting that Committee finding and its recommended sanction.

District of Columbia v. Jeppsen Ex Rel. Jeppsen

514 F.3d 1287 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 1, 2008

Before: GINSBURG, Chief Judge, and ROGERS and BROWN, Circuit Judges.  2 Opinion for the Court filed by Chief Judge GINSBURG. … Alternatively, the District argues that under Buckhannon Board and Care Home, Inc. v.

Franklin Investment Co., Inc., a Corporation v. Walter N. Tobriner, Constituting the Board of Commissioners for the District of Columbia

296 F.2d 451 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 7, 1961

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.

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.

Thomas McLamb v. NLRB

141 F.4th 1308 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 1, 2025

Standard of Review “Judicial review of the Board’s decisions and orders must evaluate both the Board’s statements of law and application of law to the facts.” Circus Circus Casinos v. NLRB, 961 F.3d 469, 475 (D.C. … Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474, 477 (1951) (quotation omitted). We give “substantial deference to inferences drawn by the Board from the factual record.” Tenneco Auto., Inc. v.

Holmes v. United States

11 F.2d 569 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 1, 1926

Keady v. People, 74 P. 892 , 32 Colo. 62 , 66 L. R. A. 353; Wright v. State, 18 Ga. 383, 391 ; Boyd v. State, 17 Ga. 194 ; Dilger v. Com., 11 S. W. 651 , 88 Ky. 550, 559 ; Lyons v. State, 9 Tex. App. 636; Alsop v. … Nor can we find any error in permitting the district attorney to examine the witness Pomeroy Brown as a hostile witness. The right to permit this was within the sound discretion of the court. St. Clair v. H. S., 14 S.

In re Navy Chaplaincy

323 F. Supp. 3d 25 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 30, 2018

Act"); Wallace v. … Claim 3 MSJ at 39; see id. at 37-42 (first citing Larkin v. Grendel's Den, Inc. , 459 U.S. 116 , 103 S.Ct. 505 , 74 L.Ed.2d 297 (1982) ; and then citing Board of Education v.

In Re Meaden

902 A.2d 802 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2006

“It has long been recognized in this jurisdiction that the trial court has equitable authority to expunge arrest records.” 10 Rezvan v. District of Columbia, 582 A.2d 937, 938 (D.C.1990) (citing Irani v. … See District of Columbia v.

Fountainview Care Center v. National Labor Relations Board

88 F.3d 1278 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 22, 1996

FOUNTAINVIEW CARE CENTER, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 95-1451. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. May 22, 1996. … It is therefore 2 ORDERED and ADJUDGED that the petition for review is denied, and the Board's cross-application for enforcement granted, substantially for the reasons set forth in the decision and order of the Board.

Farrington v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 9, 2022

See, e.g., Brown v. Mills, 674 F. Supp. 2d 182, 197 n.8 (D.D.C. 2009) (“[M]ere knowledge of . . . protected acts is not sufficient to allow a jury to infer that [the] acts were motivated by retaliation.”); Barry v. … As in Brown v. Mills and Barry v. U.S.

Simmons, Sebastian C v. Howard Univ

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 2, 1998

Brown argued the cause and filed the briefs for appellant. Anita Barondes argued the cause for appellees. With her on the brief were Michael F. Kleine and Mose Lewis, III. … to represent them); Gustafson v.

Local 130, International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl-Cio v. Frank W. McCulloch Howard Jenkins, Boyd Leedom

345 F.2d 90 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 1965

In declining to sanction district court jurisdiction a third time, Boire v. … See, in this connection, NLRB v. Local 182, Int’l Bhd. of Teamsters, etc., 314 F.2d 53 (2d Cir. 1963). 6 . Milk & Ice Cream Drivers, etc. v. McCulloch, 113 U.S.App.D.C. 156 , 306 F.2d 763 (1962); Leedom v.

Natural Resources Defense Council v. U.S. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

879 F.3d 1202 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 19, 2018

Robertson v. … Ass’n of Am. v. Dep’t of Transp., 119 F.3d 38, 43 (D.C. Cir. 1997). In this case, however, there was no inconsistency. The Councils misunderstand the Board’s reasoning. The Board rejected Dr.

Weinberg v. Barry

634 F. Supp. 86 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1986

Finally, the decisions of the Review Board are subject to judicial review by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals. See A & G Limited Partnership v. … United States v. Singleton, 759 F.2d 176 (D.C.Cir.1985).

Sunshine Book Company and Solair Union Naturisme, Inc. v. Arthur E. Summerfield, Individually and as Postmaster General of the United States

249 F.2d 114 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 3, 1957

See Kingsley Books, Inc., v. Brown, supra. It may be that the postal power would provide a basis for a Federal statute authorizing a similar form of judicial control. … Board of Regents of University of State of New York, 1953, 305 N.Y. 336, 350 , 113 N.E.2d 502, 512 , reversed sub nom. Superior Films v. Dept. of Education, 1954, 346 U.S. 587 , 74 S.Ct. 286 , 98 L.Ed. 329 . .

Owings v. Secretary of the United States Air Force

298 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 1969

this Court has jurisdiction to review the actions of that Board. 8 The scope of review permitted by this jurisdiction, however, is uncertain. 9 In Van Bourg v. … Wallace, supra, note 21 at 651 with preliminary facts quoted at p. 2 of this opinion from the Report of the Board. 28 . United States v. Wallace, supra, note 21 , at 653. 29 . Thorpe v.

In re Johnson

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2025

Board on Professional Responsibility alleging their eligibility and fitness to be reinstated. Id. § 16(d); Board Pro. Resp. R. 9.1(c). … XI, § 16(e); Board Pro. Resp. R. 9.6(a).