Case law

Office of the Federal Public Defender, Middle District of Tennessee v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 26, 2026

Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37, 42 (D.C. Cir. 2011) (quoting Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190, 1194 (D.C. Cir. 2009)). … Blackwell, 646 F.3d at 42 (quoting Mayer Brown LLP, 562 F.3d at 1194); see also Founding Church of Scientology of Wash., D.C., Inc. v. Nat’l Sec. Agency, 610 F.2d 824, 832 n.67 (D.C.

Alexiou v. McGrath

101 F. Supp. 421 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 19, 1951

On November 8, 1949, this Board reversed the decision of the Acting Commissioner. … Adel v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 1950, 183 F.2d 371 ; Matrapasqua v. Shaughnessy, 2 Cir., 1950, 180 F.2d 999 ; Vergas v. Shaughnessy, D.C.N.Y.1951, 97 F.Supp. 335 .

United States v. Fredrico E. Loundmannz

472 F.2d 1376 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 26, 1973

The inference here is stronger than existed in De Bruhl v. United States, 91 U.S. … Daniels v. United States, 129 U.S.App.D.C. 250, 252 , 393 F.2d 359, 361 (1968).

Schaefer v. McHugh

608 F.3d 851 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 22, 2010

The courts review the Correction Board’s decision under the Administrative Procedure Act’s arbitrary and capricious standard. Kidwell v. Department of the Army, 56 F.3d 279, 286 (D.C. Cir. 1995). … When assessing a Correction Board decision, courts employ an “unusually deferential application of the arbitrary or capricious standard.” Musengo v. White, 286 F.3d 535, 538 (D.C.

Level the Playing Field v. Federal Election Commission

381 F. Supp. 3d 78 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 2019

The first is an "informal policy," which provides that "Board members are to refrain from serving in any official capacity with a political campaign or party while serving on the Board." (A.R. 7103.) … (Brown Decl. at ¶ 35.) Thus, third party candidates have proven that they can achieve the level of support required by the CPD.

United Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Modern Air Transport, Inc., Quaker City Airways, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Eastern Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Pan American World Airways, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Atchison, Topeka & Santa Fe Railway Company v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Modern Air Transport, Inc., Supplemental Air Carrier Conference, United States Overseas Airlines, Inc., Quaker City Airways, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Trans World Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., United States Overseas Airlines, Inc., Supplemental Air Carrier Conference, Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. American Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., United States Overseas Airlines, Inc., Supplemental Air Carrier Conference, Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Delta Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Quaker City Airways, Inc., Modern Air Transport, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. Northwest Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Modern Air Transport, Inc., Quaker City Airways, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors. National Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Modern Air Transport, Inc., Quaker City Airways, Inc., All American Airways, Inc., Intervenors

278 F.2d 446 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 7, 1960

TRANS WORLD AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent. … AMERICAN AIRLINES, INC., Petitioner, v. CIVIL AERONAUTICS BOARD, Respondent.

Farmer v. United Electrical, Radio & MacHine Workers of America (Ue) Farmer v. American Communications Ass'n. Farmer v. International Fur & Leather Workers Union of United States and Canada

211 F.2d 36 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 12, 1954

211 F.2d 36 93 U.S.App.D.C. 178 FARMER et al. v. UNITED ELECTRICAL, RADIO & MACHINE WORKERS OF AMERICA (UE), et al. FARMER et al. v. AMERICAN COMMUNICATIONS ASS'N. FARMER et al. v. … Corp. v. United States, 12 Columbia Broadcasting System v. United States, 13 and Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Committee v.

Porco v. Huerta

472 F. App'x 2 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 21, 2012

In the past, the Board had used several formulations for its deferential standard of review of ALJ credibility determinations. See, e.g., Chirino v. NTSB, 849 F.2d 1525 , 1530 & n. 6 (D.C.Cir.1988). … The Board properly examined the objective facts relating to Porco’s arrest in evaluating whether she knew her answer to Question 18v was false at the time she made it. See Cooper v.

City of New York v. Federal Deposit Insurance Corporation, as Receiver for Silicon Valley Bank

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 27, 2026

The Bank Board was also empowered to appoint a receiver for the “reorganization” or “liquidation” of these associations should they fail. Id. (cleaned up). … See Davis v. Brown, 94 U.S. 423, 427 (1876) (noting the receiver “stands in [the bank’s] shoes”); Sekhar v.

United States v. Washington

38 F. Supp. 2d 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 1999

Valentine Brown, an acknowledged expert in the illegal drug trade. … But see United States v. Walker, 960 F.2d 409 (5th Cir.)

Penny v. U.S. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 21, 2009

P. 56(c); see also Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322 (1986); Diamond v. Atwood, 43 F.3d 1538, 1540 (D.C. Cir. 1995). … Greene v. Dalton, 164 F.3d 671, 675 (D.C. Cir. 1999); Harding v. Gray, 9 F.3d 150, 154 (D.C. Cir. 1993).

In Re Evans

902 A.2d 56 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2006

V. Conclusion The Board sustains the Committee’s finding that Respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.7(b)(4) and 8.4(d). … Although it appears that Maurice’s interest in his mother’s estate should not have been distributed to his heirs without a probate proceeding, see Douglas v.

Davidson v. Office of Employee Appeals

886 A.2d 70 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2005

Mills v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Empl. Servs., 838 A.2d 325, 328 (D.C.2003) (quoting Black v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 801 A.2d 983, 985 (D.C.2002)). … Ferreira v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 667 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1995).

Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, Winfield Manufacturing Company, Inc., Intervenor. Winfield Manufacturing Company, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, Amalgamated Clothing Workers Ofamerica, Intervenor

424 F.2d 818 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 2, 1970

The only question presented on judicial review is whether the Board has reasonably exercised its discretion in the matter. Pepperell Mfg. Co. v. … Stevens remedy,' which would require the publication of the Board's mandates through oral explanation of the Board's ruling on this case to assembled employees on Company time. J. P. Stevens (I) v.

Josey v. United States

135 F.2d 809 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 1943

” Appellant relies upon Brown v. … United States, 170 U.S. 481, 508 , 18 S.Ct. 689 , 42 L.Ed. 1116 ; Brown v. United States, 256 U.S. 335, 343 , 41 S.Ct. 501 , 65 L.Ed. 961 , 18 A.L.R. 1276 . 9 Tatum v.

In Re McConnell

502 A.2d 454 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1985

The matter came before the Board for argument on September 13, 1984. … Boykin v. Alabama, 395 U.S. 238, 242 , 89 S.Ct. 1709, 1711 , 23 L.Ed.2d 274 (1969).

Beauregard v. Mabus

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2012

Fuller v. Winter, 538 F. Supp. 2d 179, 185 (D.D.C. 2008) (quoting Occidental Eng’g Co. v. … Consequently, the Board is “free to draw [its] own reasonable inferences and conclusions from the evidence before [it].” Mudd v. Caldera, 134 F. Supp. 2d 138, 143 (D.D.C. 2001) (citing Mail Order Ass’n of America v.

Northeast Broadcasting, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Naugatuck Valley Service, Inc., Intervenor

400 F.2d 749 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 19, 1968

See Key v. United States, 263 F.Supp. 544 (S.D.Ind.1966). … See also RCA v. United States, 341 U.S. 412 , 71 S.Ct. 806 , 95 L.Ed. 1062 (1951); Mitchell v. Fischer, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 316 , 293 F.2d 155 (1961). .

International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Afl- Cio-Clc v. National Labor Relations Board, White-Westinghouse Corp., Intervenor. White-Westinghouse Corporation, a Wholly Owned Subsidiary of White Consolidated Industries, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board, International Union of Electrical, Radio and MacHine Workers, Etc., Intervenor

604 F.2d 689 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 9, 1979

Pulley v. … NLRB v.

Carpenter v. DC TRAFFIC ADJUD. APP. BD.

530 A.2d 680 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1987

See Pillis v. … See Jones v. District of Columbia Hackers' License Appeal Board, 455 A.2d 896, 897 (D.C.1983) (substantial evidence test). Therefore some period of suspension was warranted.