Case law

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.

Weaver Bros. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission

473 A.2d 384 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1984

Brown that because of the RHC’s action, his rent would rise from $406 to $447 a month beginning on May 1, 1981. Five months remained in Mr. Brown’s 1-year lease term. … Williams v.

Novacare, Inc. v. Thompson

357 F. Supp. 2d 268 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 2005

The analysis, therefore, is limited , to determining whether the Board’s decision was “rational and based on a consideration of the relevant factors.” FCC v. … Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C.Cir.1994).

Dow Jones & Company, Inc. v. Ablaise Ltd.

583 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2008

See Benitec Australia, Ltd. v. Nucleonics, 495 F.3d 1340, 1346 (Fed.Cir.2007); see also Crossbow Tech., Inc. v. … Charlie Brown and Lucy were at least nominally on the same side, and Lucy didn’t want to keep the ball — she just didn’t want Charlie Brown to have the satisfaction of kicking it.

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

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.

United States v. Tracey A. Hall

969 F.2d 1102 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 10, 1992

See, e.g., United States v. … United States v.

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.

International Organization of Masters, Mates & Pilots, ILA, AFL-CIO v. NLRB

61 F.4th 169 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 3, 2023

Furthermore, “judicial deference is not warranted where the Board fails to adequately explain its reasoning, or where the Board leaves critical gaps in its reasoning.” David Saxe Prods., LLC v. … Encino Motorcars, LLC v. Navarro, 579 U.S. 211, 221 (2016); see NLRB v. CNN Am., Inc., 865 F.3d 740, 748 (D.C.

Jerry Dwayne Baxter v. Graham W. Claytor, Jr., Secretary of the Navy

652 F.2d 181 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 24, 1981

Although technically the Board may lack the ability to invalidate or overrule a court-martial conviction, see Goldstein v. … See, e. g., McNeese v. Board of Education, 373 U.S. 668 , 674—76, 83 S.Ct. 1433, 1437-38 , 10 L.Ed.2d 622 (1963); Sholly v. United States Nuclear Regulatory Comm’n, 651 F.2d 780 , at 791 n.28 (D.C.Cir. 1980).

American Air Export & Import Co. v. O'Neill

221 F.2d 829 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 23, 1954

National Mediation Board, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 15 , 141 F.2d 724 ; National Federation of Ry. Workers v. National Mediation Board, 1944, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 16 , 141 F.2d 725 ; Kirkland v. Atlantic Coast Line R. … National Mediation Board, 1949, 85 U.S.App.D.C. 352 , 179 F.2d 446 ; Radio Officers’ Union v. National Mediation Board, 1950, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 319 , 181 F.2d 801 . . 5 U.S.C.A. § 1009 .

In Re Cornish

691 A.2d 156 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1997

Comm’n v. Samuels, 328 Md. 739 , 616 A.2d 903 (1992). The Maryland order before us placing respondent on inactive status does not include any such explicit condition, Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. … Comm’n v. Dick, 340 Md. 28 , 664 A.2d 1263 (1995), Attorney Griev. Comm’n v. Clancy, 336 Md. 516 , 649 A.2d 356 (1994), and Attorney Griev. Comm’n v.

Tippitt v. Wood

140 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 7, 1944

Heavy reliance is placed by the Board upon the cases of Zerbst v. Kidwell, 304 U.S. 359 , 58 S.Ct. 872 , 82 L.Ed. 1399 , 116 A.L.R. 808 , and Hammerer v. Huff, 71 App.D.C. 246 , 110 F.2d 113 . … See Helms v. Holmes, 4 Cir., 129 F.2d 263, 267 , 141 A.L.R. 1367 .

Gilbert v. Wilson

292 F. Supp. 3d 426 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 27, 2018

Cir. 1997) (Air Force selective early retirement board); Paylor v. Winter , 600 F.Supp.2d 117 (D.D.C. 2009) (Navy promotion selection board); Ricks , 65 Fed.Cl. 826 (Air Force promotion selection board); Christensen v. … v.

Edward M. Crough, Inc. v. Department of General Services

572 A.2d 457 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1990

(“Crough”), a general contractor, appeals from a decision by the Contract Appeals Board (the “Board”) of the Department of General Services of the District of Columbia, charging that the Board erred, inter alia, in denying … General Ship Corp. v. United States, 634 F.Supp. 868, 870 (D.Mass.1986). See also Paccon, Inc. v.

Gentila v. Pace, Secretary of the Army

193 F.2d 924 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 3, 1952

Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 305 , 64 S.Ct. 95, 99 , 88 L.Ed. 61 . … Davis v. Woodring, 72 App.D.C. 83 , 111 F.2d 523 ; Reid v. United States, D.C., 161 F. 469 , appeal dismissed, 211 U.S. 529 , 29 S.Ct. 171 , 53 L.Ed. 313 ; Nordmann v. Woodring, D.C., 28 F.Supp. 573 . 11 .

XP Vehicles, Inc. v. United States Department of Energy

156 F. Supp. 3d 185 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2016

Council v. Ashe, 946 F. … DATE: January 15, 2016 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

In Re Chasnoff

827 A.2d 808 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 2003

Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Chasnoff, 366 Md. 250 , 783 A.2d 224 (2001). … XI, § 11(d), 1 and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”). The Board recommends that we impose reciprocal discipline in the form of a ninety-day suspension with a fitness requirement.

1230-1250 Twenty-Third Street Condominium Unit Owners Ass'n v. Bolandz

978 A.2d 1188 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2009

(quoting Maybin v. … Bolandz explained to the trial court that this law firm was involved in pursuing a claim against a Board member (which was not part of Count II), and withdrew those fees from his fee request. . In Chang v.