Case law

Kalil v. Johanns

407 F. Supp. 2d 94 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2005

See Kowal v. MCI Communications Corp., 16 F.3d 1271, 1276 (D.C.Cir.1994); Konarski v. Brown, 293 F.Supp.2d 70, 72 (D.D.C.2003). … Weinberg, 434 A.2d 404 (D.C.1981) (holding that a laundromat employee was acting within the scope of employment when he shot a customer following a dispute over missing clothes); Brown v.

Kautter v. Reid

183 F. Supp. 352 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 12, 1960

White v. Reid, 125 F.Supp. at page 649 . … Benton v.

Blackledge v. United States

447 A.2d 46 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1982

United States v. … But see Brock v.

Brink v. Xe Holding, LLC

910 F. Supp. 2d 242 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 21, 2012

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … Brown v.

Kaseman v. District of Columbia

444 F.3d 637 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 2006

Fund v. EPA, 672 F.2d 42, 62 (D.C. Cir. 1982). We have no cause to question the reasoning of Moore and Environmental Defense Fund, but the “semantic strain” between direct and implied causes of action, Brown v. … Zipperer v. Sch. Bd. of Seminole County, Fla., 111 F.3d 847, 851 (11th Cir. 1997); Brown, 12 F.3d at 683; Eggers v. Bullitt County Sch. Dist., 854 F.2d 892, 898 (6th Cir. 1988).

Rural Development Innovations Limited v. Marocco

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2026

acting USADF Board members." … Schs. v.

Coleman v. Brucker

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

And in Service v. … Accardi v.

United States v. Henson

486 F.2d 1292 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 17, 1973

In Cummings v. … McGautha v.

Nader v. McAuliffe

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2009

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C. Cir. 2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C. Cir. 2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242. The court’s resolution of a Rule 12(b)(6) motion represents a ruling on the merits with res judicata effect. Haase v.

Bloch v. Albright

43 F. Supp. 2d 17 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 1999

In reviewing a decision of the Board this court must afford great deference to the Board’s decision. See United States v. Paddack, 825 F.2d 504, 514 (D.C.Cir.1987). … Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. v.

Ford, Jr. v. Massarone

208 F. Supp. 3d 91 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 13, 2016

Cir. 2010), and the Parole Board then “operated with discretion that was ‘almost unbridled,’” Wilson v. Fullwood, 772 F. … in parole); see also Greenholtz v.

In Re Saul

671 A.2d 461 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 22, 1996

V 1993), in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Virginia. United States v. Saul, No. 93-0108-0001 (E.D.Va. Sept. 3, 1993). … But then, in October 1995, respondent withdrew his exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation, thereby withdrawing as well any objection contained in his earlier filed briefs.

Local Union No. 98 Of The Sheet Metal Workers' International Association v. National Labor Relations Board

433 F.2d 1189 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 18, 1970

See also Lewis v. … See also N.L.R.B. v. Brown, 380 U.S. 278 , 85 S.Ct. 980 , 13 L.Ed.2d 839 (1965). It may be that in certain cases an "area" concept would be appropriate for primary-secondary analysis.

Doctors Hospital, Inc. v. Califano

459 F. Supp. 201 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 6, 1978

See e. g., Overlook Nursing Home, Inc. v. United States, 556 F.2d 500, 506 (Ct. Cl. 1977). For purposes of judicial review, “substantial evidence” means something less than the weight of the evidence. Consolo v. … The Board’s decision conforms to the relevant statutory and regulatory provisions, is not arbitrary or irrational, and is supported by substantial evidence. 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(v)(l)(A) mandates that “the necessary costs of

Saladino v. U.S. Office of Special Counsel

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 24, 2026

In general, “[f]ederal employees may contest the validity of their terminations under the [Act] in an administrative tribunal known as the Merit Systems Protection Board.” Maryland v. … (quoting Haaland v.

Agapito v. District of Columbia

525 F. Supp. 2d 150 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2007

There has been no reply from the attorneys at the Brown firm. II. … See Laffey v.

Giel v. Winter

503 F. Supp. 2d 208 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 10, 2007

See Blevins v. … See Flynn v.

U.S. International Trade Commission v. ASAT, Inc.

411 F.3d 245 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 10, 2005

However, because it is not so clear that Steel Co. is inconsistent with the characterization of similar statutory language in LaRouche and FTC v. Browning, 435 F.2d 96 (D.C. … Browning, 435 F.2d at 100.

Doe v. Daversa Partners

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 25, 2021

Johnson-Brown v. 2200 M Street LLC, 257 F. Supp. 2d 175, 177 (D.D.C. 2003) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c)). … Brown’s Opp’n at 3; Daversa’s Opp’n at 7. Here, only one of the requirements was met: while Brown fulfills the second requirement, plaintiff concedes that “Brown had not been served at the time of the removal.”

Washington Teachers' Union v. District of Columbia Public Schools

960 A.2d 1123 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2008

Davis v. United States, 564 A.2d 31, 35 (D.C.1989). 11 . Armstead v. District of Columbia, 810 A.2d 398, 400 (D.C.2002) (quoting Grillo v. District of Columbia, 731 A.2d 384, 386 (D.C. 1999) and Taggart-Wilson v. … (quoting King v. Kidd, 640 A.2d 656, 664 (D.C.1993)). 17 . District of Columbia v. The Sierra Club, 670 A.2d 354, 358 (D.C.1996) (citing Simpson v.