Case law

Sisco v. GSA National Capital Federal Credit Union

689 A.2d 52 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1997

adoption annually by the newly constituted board. … In Elliott v.

Frank D. Crum v. General Adjustment Bureau and Home Indemnity Company, General Adjustment Bureau and Home Indemnity Company v. Frank D. Crum

738 F.2d 474 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 6, 1984

(“BRB” or “Board”). … But the BRB was not entitled to review this matter de novo; rather, the Board was bound by the AU’s determination if supported by substantial evidence. See Bath Iron Works Corp. v.

Brotherhood of Railway & Steamship Clerks, Freight Handlers, Express & Station Employees v. United Transport Service Employees of America

137 F.2d 817 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 2, 1943

From said judgment the Board perfected no appeal, and the intervening Brotherhood is the sole appellant. In Brotherhood of Railroad Trainmen v. … Trainmen v.

Harris v. United States Supreme Court

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 23, 2012

Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring). Following Justice Jackson’s maxim, this court lacks any power to review the Supreme Court’s actions. See In re Marin, 956 F.2d 339, 340 (D.C. … .”)); Brown v. U.S. Supreme Court, 2008 WL 5082141, at *1 (D.D.C.

Keyworth C. Birch, Jr. v. Sam A. Anderson

358 F.2d 520 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 9, 1965

But we find support in the dicta of the Eighth Circuit in Sprouse v. Settle, 274 F.2d 681 . Since Taylor v. Godwin, supra, relies primarily upon Schiffman v. … We commented upon this problem in Mock v. U. S. Board of Parole, 120 U.S.App.D.C. 248 , 345 F.2d 737 . 4 . Att’y Gen. Survey of Release Procedures 29-31 (1939) herein cited as Survey. 5 . Survey, 493. 6 . H.R.Rep.

Belsinger v. District of Columbia

295 F. Supp. 159 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 22, 1969

Offutt v. United States, 348 U.S. 11, 14 , 75 S.Ct 11 99 L.Ed. 11 (1954). . American Cyanamid Co. v. F. T. C., 363 F.2d 757 (6th Cir. 1966). . Amos Treat & Co. v. S. E. C., 113 U.S. … Continental Box Co. v. N. L. R. B., 113 F.2d 93 (5th Cir. 1940). . Cf., National Lawyer’s Guild v. Brownell, 126 F.Supp. 730 (D.C.D.C.1954). . Lumber Mut. Casualty Ins. Co. of New York v.

Civic v. Signature Collision Centers, LLC & H.P. West End, LLC

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 2019

(citations omitted); District of Columbia v. … See Scoggins v.

Federal Election Commission v. Committee to Elect Lyndon La Rouche

613 F.2d 849 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 19, 1980

Jones v. … In FTC v.

National Hot Rod Association v. NLRB

988 F.3d 506 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 23, 2021

CIRCUIT Argued February 2, 2021 Decided February 23, 2021 No. 20-1152 NATIONAL HOT ROD ASSOCIATION, PETITIONER v. … Then, after the Board holds the employer in violation of § 8(a)(5), the employer can petition for review in a Court of Appeals. See, e.g., Am. Fed’n of Lab. v. NLRB, 308 U.S. 401, 406–12 (1940).

Van v. Am. Airlines, Inc.

370 F. Supp. 3d 218 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 30, 2019

These boards have "exclusive primary jurisdiction" over such disputes. Pa. R.R. Co. v. Day , 360 U.S. 548 , 550, 79 S.Ct. 1322 , 3 L.Ed.2d 1422 (1959). … ."); Allen v. United Transp.

In re Certain Carriers Represented by the Eastern, Western, & Southeastern Carriers' Conference Committees

229 F. Supp. 259 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 11, 1964

arbitrated by that special Board. 1 Two issues were submitted. … Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v. Chicago, Burlington & Quincy Railroad Co., 225 F.Supp. 11 . . Affirmed February 20, 1964, 331 F.2d 1020 . . Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen and Enginemen v.

Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Ass'n v. Environmental Protection Agency

622 F. App'x 4 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 24, 2015

Ass’n, Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 627 F.2d 1095, 1105 (D.C.Cir.1979). OOIDA, however, does not argue that the Administrator’s actions were arbitrary or capricious. … Trucking Assocs., Inc. v. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 600 F.3d 624, 628 (D.C.Cir.2010) (rejecting a similar attempt “improperly to engraft a type of constitutional Commerce Clause analysis onto”'an EPA waiver decision).

DePippo v. Chertoff

453 F. Supp. 2d 30 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2006

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 . … Smith v. Brown & Williamson Tobacco Corp., 3 F.Supp.2d 1473, 1475 (D.D.C.1998) (citing Kuwait Airways Corp. v. Am. Sec. Bank, N.A., 890 F.2d 456 , 463 n. 11 (D.C.Cir.1989)). B.

Thomas v. National Football League Players Ass'n

131 F.3d 198 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 19, 1997

Around the same time, Upshaw implemented the NFLPA board’s directive to lay off some employees to cut costs. … See, e.g., Brown v. East Mississippi Elec. Power Ass’n, 989 F.2d 858, 861 (5th Cir.1993); Heim v. Utah, 8 F.3d 1541, 1547 (10th Cir.1993); EEOC v. Alton Packaging Corp., 901 F.2d 920, 923 (11th Cir.1990).

Tyler v. District of Columbia Housing Authority

113 F. Supp. 3d 88 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 2015

.; Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.” Ashcroft v. … Brown, 2015 WL 3634672, at *5; see also Richardson v. United States, 193 F.3d 545, 548 (D.C.

Mansfield v. Billington

432 F. Supp. 2d 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 1, 2006

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 . … Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 145 (D.C.Cir.2002) (quoting Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C.Cir.1999)); see also McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. Green, 411 U.S. 792, 802 , 93 S.Ct. 1817 , 36 L.Ed.2d 668 (1973).

Western Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, United Air Lines, Inc., City of Kansas City, Missouri, Continental Air Lines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., Pan American World Airways, Inc., Intervenors. The City of San Diego, San Diego Unified Port District, and San Diego Chamber of Commerce v. Civil Aeronautics Board, United Air Lines, Inc., Northwest Airlines, Inc., Pan American World Airways, Inc., Intervenors

351 F.2d 778 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 3, 1965

Bd. v. … We had reversed the Board's order certifying Piedmont but concluded we had no authority to order the Board to certify State Airlines. State Airlines v.

Sirmans v. Caldera

138 F. Supp. 2d 14 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2001

See, e.g., Bush v. … .”); Georgia v.

Woodruff v. Mineta

215 F. Supp. 2d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 7, 2002

(citing Brown v. Gen. Serv. Admin., 425 U.S. 820 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976)). A complainant need only give “the agency ... sufficient, even if technically flawed, notice of the grievance.” Bethel v. … Congress empowered the Merit Systems Protection Board (“MSPB”) to oversee adjudicatory responsibilities involving personnel actions, as opposed to claims of discrimination. 5 U.S.C. § 1204 .

Methodist Hospitals of Memphis v. Sullivan

799 F. Supp. 1210 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 17, 1992

. § 413.86 (e)(l)(v). … Hospitals, if dissatisfied with the intermediary’s determination, have 180 days from the date of the notice to file an appeal with the Provider Reimbursement Review Board (“PRRB”). 42 C.F.R. § 413 .-86(e)(l)(v).