Case law

District of Columbia v. Suydam

591 A.2d 856 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 1991

The judge agreed and granted the motion, citing Schwartz v. Brown, 64 A.2d 298 (D.C.1949), and Belanger v. … Schwartz v. Brown, 64 A.2d at 299 ; Burger v. Western Sand & Gravel Co., 237 S.W.2d 725, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.1950).

Rice v. Dean

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 22, 2025

v. … Brown v. Dalton, No. 96-5285, 1997 WL 362505, at *1 (D.C. Cir. May 5, 1997) (per curiam) (citations omitted). II.

Butler v. United States

388 A.2d 883 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1978

Brown v. United States, D.C.App., 379 A.2d 708 (1977). … We reiterate our holding in Brown v. United States, supra, that the ten-day rule is jurisdictional, and that Fallen permits departure under only the most compelling of circumstances.

Hechinger v. Martin

411 F. Supp. 650 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 24, 1976

In Kaelin v. … In Lo Frisco v.

Whiteru v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 14, 2020

Brown has no independent memory of conducting those particular inspections (see Pls.’ … District of Columbia v. Brown, 589 A.2d 384, 388 (D.C. 1991) (quoting Aqui v. Isaac, 342 A.2d 370, 371–72 (D.C. 1975)).

Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, City of Nashville and the Nashville Chamber of Commerce, City of Tampa, Florida, and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of St. Louis, Missouri, and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, City of Tampa, Florida, and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of St. Louis, Missouri, and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Eastern Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, City of Tampa, Florida, and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of St. Louis, Missouri, and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Delta Air Lines, Inc., Intervenors. National Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, City of Tampa, Florida, and the Greater Tampa Chamber of Commerce, City of Kansas City, Missouri, City of St. Louis, Missouri, and the Chamber of Commerce of Metropolitan St. Louis, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Intervenors

275 F.2d 632 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 10, 1959

required by Delta Air Lines v. … Gerico Investment Co. v.

United States v. Holton

122 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 27, 2000

Government’s use of Detective Brown Detective Brown testified for the government in petitioner’s trial. In February 2000, Detective Brown pleaded guilty to perjuring his academic credentials. See United States v. … Brown, Criminal No. 00-35 HHK (D.D.C.).

Kingston Constructors, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

930 F. Supp. 651 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 7, 1996

See Granite-Groves v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority, 845 F.2d 330, 333 (D.C.Cir.1988). … See, e.g., Rattigan v.

Ace Property & Casualty Insurance v. Federal Crop Insurance

517 F. Supp. 2d 391 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 28, 2007

As stated supra, the Board did not have sufficient information to apply the 45-day limitation period based on a “harmonious reading.” Instead, the Board relied on S.O.G. of Arkansas v. … Co. v.

Hale County v. United States

496 F. Supp. 1206 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 4, 1980

City of Richmond v. … Plaintiffs cite Dallas County v. Reese, 421 U.S. 477 , 95 S.Ct. 1706 , 44 L.Ed.2d 312 (1975), Dusch v. Davis, 387 U.S. 112 , 87 S.Ct. 1554 , 18 L.Ed.2d 656 (1967), and Fortson v.

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.

In Re Youmans

617 A.2d 534 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1993

Before us is a report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that respondent be disbarred both on the basis of the imposition of reciprocal discipline under D.C.Bar R. … The Board noted further that New Jersey courts have described the offense covered by the theft by deception statute as one involving fraud, State v. Rodgers, 230 N.J.Super. 593 , 554 A.2d 866, 870 (App.Div.)

CarrAmerica Realty Corp. v. Kaidanow

321 F.3d 165 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 7, 2003

See Goldman v. Bequai, 19 F.3d 666, 672 (D.C.Cir.1994). … Partners v. Huizenga, 751 A.2d 879, 896 (Del.Ch.1999). Appellees argue that both Triplex Shoe Co. v. Rice & Hutchins, Inc., 152 A. 342 (Del. 1930), and STAAR Surgical Co. v.

Matter of Washington

513 A.2d 245 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 1986

See Caravel Office Building Co. v. Peruvian Air Attache, 347 A.2d 280, 283 (D.C.1976); see also Briggs v. Goodwin, 186 U.S. … See Board Rule 7.2, note 11 supra.

In Re Owusu

886 A.2d 536 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2005

*538 FARRELL, Associate Judge: The Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board), having found that respondent Jacob Q. … In a recent case, Sitcov v. District of Columbia Bar, No. 05-BG-258, 885 A.2d 289 , 2005 D.C.App. Lexis 529 (D.C. October 20, 2005), we similarly held that suspension of an attorney for nonpayment of Bar dues under D.C.

In Re Anderson

979 A.2d 1206 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 2009

The disbursement sheet is undated and contains the following entries: SETTLEMENT STATEMENT Robin Hammond v. … V. Disciplinary Inquiries and Proceedings A. Respondent’s Tardy Response to the Bar Complaint 24. As indicated above, Ms. Fisher-Hammond filed a bar complaint against Respondent in early 2001.

J. Mahoney v. Shaun Donovan

721 F.3d 633 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 28, 2013

Grosdidier v. Chairman, Broad. Bd. of Governors, 560 F.3d 495, 497 (D.C. Cir. 2009); see also Filebark v. U.S. Dep’t of Transp., 555 F.3d 1009 (D.C. Cir. 2009); Fornaro v. James, 416 F.3d 63 (D.C. … The Board pointed to a district court case, Chocallo v. Bureau of Hearings & Appeals, 548 F. Supp. 1349 (E.D.

DISTRICT HOSP. PARTNERS, LP v. Sebelius

794 F. Supp. 2d 162 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 5, 2011

If the Board determines that it lacks the authority to decide the question, it will certify the question for “expedited judicial review.” See id.; see also Heartland Reg’l Med. Ctr. v. … . § 405.1842 (a)(1) (provider may seek review of “a legal question relevant to a specific matter at issue in a Board appeal” (emphasis added)); see also Shalala v. Ill.

In re Harris Lindsey

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2020

Co. v. Barry Inn Realty, Inc., 130 F. … As the Board also noted, case law and D.C. Bar ethics opinions state that an attorney to the fiduciary of an estate does not have a fiduciary relationship with the estate. 14 14 See Hopkins v.

In Re Clarke

684 A.2d 1276 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 7, 1996

R. 12(h)(1); Cusimano v. First Md. Sav. & Loan, 639 A.2d 553 , 557 n. 5 (D.C.1994) (defense of lack of personal jurisdiction is waived if neither asserted by motion nor included in a responsive pleading); Snyder v. … Respondent’s claim that he did not have a copy of Weinberg v. Clarke, CA 93-2522 (D.C.Super. Ct. April 5, 1994), the case in which Dr.