Case law

King v. Nixon

207 F.2d 41 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 27, 1953

Brown v. Evans, C.C., 17 F. 912 ; affirmed, Evans v. Brown, 1883, 109 U.S. 180 , 3 S.Ct. 83 , 27 L.Ed. 898 ; notes, 16 A.L.R. 771 , 798, 838, 123 A.L.R. 1115 , 1122, 1136. Affirmed. 1 . … Language to the contrary in Huber v. Teuber, 1879, 3 MacArthur 484 , 497, 10 D.C. 484 , is erroneous.

In Re Balsamo

780 A.2d 255 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2001

See, e.g., United States v. Mangieri, 224 U.S.App. … See id. at 430 (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985)).

Smith v. Murphy

294 A.2d 357 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 1972

(see footnote 4, supra), the *360 Board of Appeals and Review remanded the case to the Director of Motor Vehicles for reconsideration in light of Bell v. Bur-son, supra.. … MV-41, Aug. 12, 1971), the Board of Appeals and Review declined to treat the issues of confrontation, cross-examination and procedural rights in remanding that case to the Director for reconsideration in light of Bell v.

Price v. Kelly

847 F. Supp. 163 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 1994

See, e.g., Board of Pardons v. Allen, 482 U.S. 369 , 107 S.Ct. 2415 , 96 L.Ed.2d 303 (1987) (prison regulations granted inmates a protected interest in parole); Hewitt v. … See, e.g., Kimberlin v.

Genesis Health Ventures of Naugatuck, Inc. v. Leavitt

563 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 2008

Ctr. v. Leavitt, 531 F.3d 844 , 2008 WL 2550542 (D.C.Cir.2008) (quoting Landgraf v. … A district court upheld the Board’s decision. See Pleasant Care Corp. v. Leavitt, No. 05-05456, (C.D.Cal. Aug. 2, 2006).

Lefrancois v. Mabus

910 F. Supp. 2d 12 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 26, 2012

Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F.Supp.2d 76, 89 (D.D.C.2006); see also Charter Operators of Alaska v. Blank, 844 F.Supp.2d 122, 126-27 (D.D.C.2012); Buckingham v. Mabus, 772 F.Supp.2d 295, 300 (D.D.C. 2011). … The Court. reviews decisions by military correction boards under “an unusually deferential application of the ‘arbitrary or capricious standard.’ ” Kreis, 866 F.2d at 1514 ; see also Cone v.

Croker v. Helvering

91 F.2d 299 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 3, 1937

See Phipps v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 54 F.(2d) 469 , and Pope v. Commissioner (C.C.A.) 77 F.(2d) 599 . We, therefore, approve the ruling of the Board in this- respect. Third. … On appeal, the Board found that there was no proof of an embezzlement.

Teamsters, Chauffeurs And Helpers Local Union No. 79, International Brotherhood Of Teamsters, Chauffeurs, Warehousemen And Helpers Of America, Petitioner v. National Labor Relations Board

325 F.2d 1011 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 5, 1963

the V-C picket line, but solely to continue their business dealings with V-C. … to support the findings of the Board and it follows accordingly, that the petition to set aside the order and supplemental order of the Board must be denied.

Hamrick v. United States

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 30, 2009

See Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 47 (1957); Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). The Complaint here does not comply with the requirements of Rule 8(a)(2). … Brown, 75 F.R.D. at 499 (citations omitted). Such dismissals may be made on motion or sua sponte by the court. Resource N.E. of Long Island, Inc. v. Babylon, 28 F.

Morgan v. Futch

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 29, 2013

Vactor v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 815 F. Supp. 2d 81, 84 (D.D.C. 2011).  “[A] case is moot when the issues presented are no longer ‘live’ or the parties lack a legally cognizable interest in the outcome.” Powell v. … Date: July 29, 2013 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Colton v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

484 A.2d 550 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1984

District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, supra. We note also that the employer bears the burden of proof on the issue of misconduct. Keep v. … Jones v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, 395 A.2d 392, 395 (D.C.1978); accord, Jadallah v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, supra, 476 A.2d at 675 ; Keep v.

Giles v. Transit Employees Federal Credit Union

794 F.3d 1 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 14, 2015

Before: BROWN, SRINIVASAN and WILKINS, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court by Circuit Judge Brown. … Felder, who served as TEFCU’s CEO at the time Giles’s position was changed, testified that Giles had not been a good employee and that Felder decided to change Giles’s role in an effort to “keep her on board” instead of firing

Frazier v. Silver

185 F. Supp. 625 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 18, 1960

Coleman v. Godsey, 1957, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 7 , 249 F.2d 522 . … It might be wise also for the Board in future cases to look a little more carefully at the procedural requirements outlined in Coffey v. Jordan, 1959, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 113 , 275 F.2d 1 , and to follow them.

Swayne & Hoyt, Ltd. v. United States

18 F. Supp. 25 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 29, 1936

Menacho v. Ward (C.C.) 27 F. 529 . It is llo less so, under the provisions of the federal statute. In saying this, we are by no means unmindful of the problems of the American shipowner. … Precisely the same point was urged in Isbrandtsen-Moller Company, Inc., v. United States et al.

Marymount Hospital, Inc. v. Sullivan

791 F. Supp. 878 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 5, 1992

The two corporations *881 operate independently, serving functions. distinct The Board relied heavily on Forsyth County Hospital Authority, Inc. v. … See Biloxi Regional Medical Center v. Bowen, 835 F.2d 345, 350 (D.C.Cir.1987).

Badhwar v. United States Department of the Air Force

622 F. Supp. 1364 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 20, 1985

In Russell v. … Paisley v.

Frank Lill & Son, Inc. v. Secretary of Labor

362 F.3d 840 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 6, 2004

& Root, Inc. v. … Brown to come up and address the issue’’ of the violation he had observed from the ground but that Brown declined. Tr. 18.

Genesis Health Ventures, Inc. v. Sebelius

798 F. Supp. 2d 170 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 22, 2011

Ctr., Inc. v. … Ctr. v.

Saint Francis Medical Center v. Burwell

239 F. Supp. 3d 237 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 2017

The appeals were all consolidated before the Board. … FCC v.

Purce v. United States

482 A.2d 772 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 1984

McShan v. Georgia, 447 U.S. 901 , 100 S.Ct. 2981 , 64 L.Ed.2d 851 (1980). The decision we cite here is that of the state court on remand. 9 . Brown v. … See, e.g., United States v. McCarthy, 448 A.2d 267, 270-271 (D.C.1982); Price v. United States, supra, 429 A.2d at 518 ; United States v. Brown, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 113 , 463 F.2d 949 (1972).