Case law

Hagar Management Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board

55 F.3d 684 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 21, 1995

HAGAR MANAGEMENT CORPORATION, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 94-1351. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. April 21, 1995. … Before: EDWARDS, Chief Judge, BUCKLEY and GINSBURG, Circuit Judges JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. 1 This cause came to be heard on petition for review of an order of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB" or "Board"), and was briefed

US Inventor, Inc. v. United States Patent and Trademark Office

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2023

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. … Arpaio v. Obama, 797 F.3d 11, 19 (D.C. Cir. 2015) (quoting Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992)).

In Re Fogel

728 A.2d 668 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 6, 1999

“Because [Bar Counsel] has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation, this court’s already considerable deference to the Board’s determination ... is enhanced.” … See North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970)(guilty plea with assertion of factual innocence). 2 . Tr. 25-26 (Robinson); 45-47 (Garber); 61-65 (Ratner); 120-23 (Jacobs).

Hca Health Services of Oklahoma, Inc. v. Donna E. Shalala, Secretary, Department of Health and Human Services

27 F.3d 614 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 1, 1994

Medical Ctr. v. … of Everett v.

In Re Casalino

697 A.2d 11 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1997

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Casalino, 335 Md. 446 , 644 A.2d 43 (1994). … We therefore agreed with the Board that Mr.

Jumawid v. Rose

127 F.R.D. 641 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 27, 1989

Brown that the Plaintiff was refusing to disclose. … See National Hockey League v. Metropolitan Hockey Club, 427 U.S. 639 , 96 S.Ct. 2778 , 49 L.Ed.2d 747 (1976).

Matter of Thorup

432 A.2d 1221 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1981

[Internal Rules of Board on Professional Responsibility chapter 8, No. 5.] The courts have generally held that the burden of proof in attorney disciplinary proceedings is on the proponent. Charlton v. … Thornton v. United States, D.C.App., 357 A.2d 429, 436 (1976); Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295, 299 (1973).

Gold v. State Plaza, Inc.

435 F. Supp. 2d 110 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 5, 2006

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has determined that in seeking in-junctive relief pursuant to Section 10(j), the Board is acting on behalf of the public. See Muniz v. … See Miller v. Cal. Pac. Med. Ctr., 19 F.3d 449 , 456-59 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc); Kinney v. Pioneer Press, 881 F.2d 485 (7th Cir.1989); and Maram v.

Smallwood v. United States Department of Justice

266 F. Supp. 3d 217 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 19, 2017

Three Forks Ranch Corn. v. Bureau of Land Mgmt., 358 F. Supp. 2d 1, 2 (D.D.C. 2005). For example, in Brown v. EPA, 384 F. … Brown,’ and that ‘Ms. Brown has hired me to obtain certain documentation pursuant to FOIA.”’).

Isa Hamad v. United States Immigration and Naturalization Service

420 F.2d 645 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 22, 1969

The Board found that he had not met this burden and, after careful review of the evidence, we think the record amply justifies the Board’s finding. See Hosseinmardi v. … Hintopoulos v.

University of the District of Columbia Faculty Association/nea v. District of Columbia Financial Responsibility and Management Assistance Authority

163 F.3d 616 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 22, 1998

see Allied, Structural Steel Co. v. … Communications Workers v.

In Re Wright

702 A.2d 1251 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1997

DePass in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia, styled Derrick Anthony DePass v. United States, C.A. … Respondent was served with a copy of the Board’s order. However, Respondent has never responded to the Board’s order.

Herminio Armando Sanchez v. Immigration and Naturalization Service

707 F.2d 1523 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 17, 1983

See INS v. … ); Chae Kim Ro v.

Ong v. United States of America

District Court, District of Columbia · May 15, 2026

Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). … v.

Helvering v. Gulf, M. & N. R. Co.

71 F.2d 953 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 14, 1934

Co. v. Com’r, 16 B. T. A. 665, affirmed (8th C. C. A.) 53 P.(2d) 372; Midland Valley Railroad Co. v. Com’r, 19 B. T. A. 42-3, affirmed (10th C. C. A.) 57 F.(2d) 1042 ; Helvering v. St. Louis S. W. Ry. Co. (C. C. … Brewster v. Gage, 280 U. S. 327, 337 , 50 S. Ct. 115 ', 74 L. Ed. 457 . The Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit upheld the regulations in question in Lehigh & Hudson River Ry. Co. v.

Budik v. Ashley

36 F. Supp. 3d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 14, 2014

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). … Cir. 1997) (“As res judicata belongs to courts as well as to litigants, even a 4 The plaintiff also asserts that the Army Review Board, presumably the Army Board for the Correction of Military Records (“Army Board”), Def

Capital Transit Co. v. United States

97 F. Supp. 614 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 23, 1951

Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, 71 S.Ct. 456, 465 . … Utiiversal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, supra.

Peoples Bank v. Eccles

64 F. Supp. 811 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 1946

In Maryland Casualty Co. v. … Edelmann & Co. v.

Battle Creek Health System v. Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 22, 2025

Ctr. v. Bowen, 795 F.2d 139, 141 (D.C. Cir. 1986). … SEC v. Chenery Corp., 332 U.S. 194, 196 (1947).

Mozelle v. United States

310 A.2d 213 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1973

In United States v. … Brown, D.C.App., 309 A.2d 256 (1973), the dismissal of two indictments brought under this statute was affirmed, the facts alleged in the particulars of such indictments being very similar to those proved here.