Case law

United States v. Michael H. Hinkle

492 F.2d 660 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 4, 1974

Called as a witness for the appellant at trial he tes *662 tified that one Michael Brown was the other robber with him, and he said he had given Brown’s name to Detective DeSoto on the night of the robbery. … In rebuttal Detective DeSoto testified that Johnson had told him Hinkle — not Brown — was the other robber.

Johnson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 2021

See Utah v. Strieff, 136 S.Ct. 2056 (2016); Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590, 603-04 (1975). … Brown v. United States, 97 A.3d 92, 97 n.5 (D.C. 2014) (quoting United States v. Flynn, 309 F.3d 736, 738 (10th Cir. 2002).

Hilyer v. Morrison-Knudsen Construction Co.

670 F.2d 208 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 1, 1981

Leslie v. Reynolds, 179 Kan. 422 , 295 P.2d 1076, 1083 (1956). . In W. W. Cross v. … Similarly, in Newport News Shipbuilding & Dry Dock Co. v.

Fuller v. Winter

538 F. Supp. 2d 179 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 14, 2008

See Camp v. … See Mudd v.

Poindexter v. D.C. Department of Corrections

891 F. Supp. 2d 117 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 2012

Comm 'rs of Bryan Cnty. v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 403-04 (1997). … Brown, 520 U.S. at 418; Daskalea v. Dist. of Columbia, 227 F.3d 433, 441 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

In Re: Navy Chaplaincy

69 F. Supp. 3d 249 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 26, 2014

Adair v. England, 183 F. … Rotella v.

Amalgamated Meat Cutters & Butcher Workmen v. Connally

337 F. Supp. 737 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 1971

GARRY BROWN. LAWRENCE G. WILLIAMS. CHALMERS P. WYLIE. MARGARET M. HECKLER. WILLIAM O. COWELR. PHILIP M. CRANE. CLARK MacGREGOR. … The power is exercised entirely at the discretion of the local board.

Aero Mayflower Transit Company, Inc. v. Interstate Commerce Commission

711 F.2d 224 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 17, 1983

The latter motion apparently was filed after the Review Board had already promulgated its initial decision. … CAB, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 399, 411-412 , 379 F.2d 453, 465-466 (1967); Brown Telecasters v.

Federal Trade Commission v. Sysco Corporation

113 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 26, 2015

Id at 713 (citing Brown Shoe Co. v. United States, 370 U.S. 294, 323 (1962)) (other citations omitted). … FTC v. Whole Foods Market, Inc., 548 F.3d 1028, 1037 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (Brown, J.).

A.H. Hansen Sales, Ltd. v. National Labor Relations Board

961 F.2d 963 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 22, 1992

HANSEN SALES, LTD., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 91-1257. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. April 22, 1992. Before WALD, HARRY T. … See Napili Shores Condominium Homeowners' Ass'n v. NLRB, 939 F.2d 717, 719 (9th Cir.1991); NLRB v. Lake Holiday Assocs., Inc., 930 F.2d 1231, 1234 (7th Cir.1991).

Reid v. Mayorkas

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 23, 2026

Cf., e.g., Brown v. U.S. EPA, 384 F. Supp. 2d 271, 276 (D.D.C. 2005) (finding standing where attorney stated in the request that “‘I represent Paula D. Brown,’ and that ‘Ms. … O’Brien did not state that he was representing Plaintiffs and making the request on behalf of Plaintiffs, as the attorney did in Brown. See 384 F. Supp. 2d at 276; see also Mahtesian v. U.S. Off. of Pers.

Pentagen Technologies Int'l, Ltd. v. Committee on Appropriations of the United States House of Representatives

20 F. Supp. 2d 41 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 30, 1998

The Brown & Williamson Court stated that “[t]he law is clear that ... use of [ ] documents by the committee staff in the course of official business is privileged legislative activity.” 62 F.3d at 417 (quoting McSurely v. … Brown & Williamson, 62 F.3d at 420 .

Brotherhood of Railroad Signalmen v. National Railroad Passenger Corporation

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 2, 2023

Mkts. & Co. v. Hans, 985 F. Supp. 2d 33, 36 (D.D.C. 2013) (citing Stolt-Nielsen S.A. v. AnimalFeeds Int’l Corp., 559 U.S. 662, 671 (2010)). … Grace & Co v. Loc. Union 759, 461 U.S. 757, 764–65 (1983) (cleaned up); see also Am. Postal Workers Union, AFL-CIO v. U.S. Postal Serv., 789 F.2d 1, 8 (D.C.

In Re: Bapa Holdings, Corp.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 15, 2026

Id. at 4; see Daimler AG v. … Hertz Corp. v.

Akron & Barberton Belt Railroad v. Order of Railway Conductors & Brakemen

253 F. Supp. 538 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 19, 1966

Under the Railway Labor Act, as it has been construed by the Supreme Court in Virginian Railway Co. v. … In this connection the Court refers to its decision in Southern Pacific Co. v. National Mediation Board, D.C., 223 F.Supp. 951 , and International Brotherhood of Teamsters, etc. v.

Empire Trails, Inc. v. United States

53 F. Supp. 373 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 1942

Manufacturers v. National Labor Relations Board, 8 Cir., 103 F.2d 953, 957 ; Morgan v. United States, 298 U.S. 468, 478 , 56 S.Ct. 906 , 80 L.Ed. 1288 ; Woodruff v. United States, D.C., 40 F. Supp. 949 . … Co. v. United States, 272 U.S. 658 , 47 S.Ct. 222 , 71 L.Ed. 463 ; Interstate Com. Comm. v. Louisville & N. R. Co., 227 U.S. 88 , 33 S.Ct. 185 , 57 L.Ed. 431 ; Merchants Warehouse Co. v.

In Re Navy Chaplaincy

512 F. Supp. 2d 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 1, 2007

Judge Facciola ruled that neither 10 U.S.C. § 618 (f), 10 U.S.C. § 14104 , nor Navy regulations shielded SER-board proceedings from civil discovery. Chaplaincy of Full Gospel Churches v. … Adair v. Winter, 451 F.Supp.2d 210, 219-223 (D.D.C.2006).

Cone, George E. v. Caldera, Louis

223 F.3d 789 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 12, 2000

See Orloff v. … See Environmental Defense Fund, Inc. v.

Cage v. McHugh

963 F. Supp. 2d 29 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 28, 2013

duty pursuant to a decision made by the Army Reduction in Force Board for fiscal year 1992 ("RIF Board"). … Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. Co. ofAm., 511 U.S. 375, 377 ( 1994 ). Accordingly, a plaintiff must establish that the Court possesses jurisdiction by a preponderance ofthe evidence. See Hollingsworth v. Duff, 444 F.

Krzywicki v. Harker

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 29, 2024

Fuentes v. Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 80 (1972). … See, e.g., Chiayu Chang v. USCIS, 254 F.