Case law

Gabina Camacho Lopez v. Manuel Rodriguez and Mirtha Rodriguez

668 F.2d 1376 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 20, 1981

See Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(c); Mumbower v. Callicott, 526 F.2d 1183 , 1187 n.5 (8th Cir. 1975); Hodgson v. … Davis Bros., Inc. v. Marshall, 522 F.Supp. 628 (N.D.Ga.1981); Morrison, Inc. v. Marshall, No. 80-0228-P (S.D.Ala. June 15, 1981); Walling v. Peavy-Wilson Lumber Co., 49 F.Supp. 846, 895 (W.D.La. 1943).

Bangor & Aroostook Railroad v. Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen

258 F. Supp. 346 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 1966

In the case of Bangor & Aroostook Railroad Co. v. … In the case of Brotherhood of Locomotive Firemen & Enginemen v. New York Central Railroad Co., the plaintiff is moving for a preliminary injunction.

United States v. United States Gypsum Co.

37 F. Supp. 398 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 1941

products other than gypsum board (the indictment refers to such manufacturers as “distributors”) who purchased their gypsum board requirements from manufacturers of gypsum board (the indictment refers to the gypsum board … Justice Holmes in Swift & Company v. United States, 196 U.S. 375 , 25 S.Ct. 276, 279 , 49 L.Ed. 518 : “The general objection is urged that the bill does not set forth sufficient definite or specific facts.

Ramos v. United States Department of Justice

682 F. Supp. 2d 20 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 21, 2010

INTRODUCTION This matter comes before the court on the pro se plaintiffs motion for recusal and motion to vacate. 1 The plaintiff brought suit challenging the decision of the Board of Immigration Appeals (“the Board”) to … Comm’ns Co. v. Am. Tel. & Tel.

In Re LR

640 A.2d 697 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1994

See, e.g., Shepard v. … See Willcher v. United States, 408 A.2d 67 (D.C. 1979) (Willcher I) ; Gregory v. United States, 393 A.2d 132 (D.C.1978). [4] Cf.

M.B.E. Inc. v. Minority Business Opportunity Commission

485 A.2d 152 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1984

Babazadeh v. District of Columbia Hackers’ License Appeal Board, 390 A.2d 1004, 1008 (D.C.1978). … See Vann v.

United States v. Canty

297 F. Supp. 853 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 10, 1969

Contee v. … Brown v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 43 , 365 F.2d 976, 979 (1966).

Dyson v. Hagel

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2014

Smith v. Dalton, 971 F. Supp. 1, 3 (D.D.C. 1997) (citing Mondy v. Sec’y of the Army, 845 F.2d 1051, 1057 (D.C. Cir. 1988)). … DATE: July 2, 2014 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

McConnell v. Howard University

621 F. Supp. 327 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 28, 1985

See Smith v. Kent State University, 696 F.2d 476 (6th Cir.1983); Stastny v. Board of Trustees of Central Washington University, 32 Wash.App. 239 , 647 P.2d 496, 502, 506-07 (1982), cert. denied, 103 S.Ct. 1528 (1983). … As in Williams v.

Buckingham v. Winter

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 28, 2011

For simplicity’s sake, the Court refers to the decision under review as the Board’s. See Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319, 320 n.* (D.C. … See Kreis v.

Bannout v. Brownell

129 F. Supp. 488 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 8, 1955

The Government contends, on the authority of Heikkila v. … In fact, any other construction would raise a serious question as to the validity of the regulation in the light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Morgan v.

Emory v. Secretary of the Navy

708 F. Supp. 1335 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 1989

This Court is not a super selection board and cannot “second [guess] the appropriate military officials whose job it is to decide these military personnel promotion matters.” Braddock v. … There is a strong presumption that the selection board members faithfully discharged their duties. Neal v. Secretary of the Navy, 639 F.2d 1029, 1037 (3d Cir.1981).

Cone v. Caldera

46 F. Supp. 2d 3 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 18, 1999

See Castañeda v. … See also Small v.

William J. Davis, Inc. v. Young

412 A.2d 1187 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1980

the Minimum Wage Board determination. … There is nothing in the record indicating the source of the Board’s information. 8 .

Davidson v. United States

48 A.3d 194 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2012

Byrd v. United States, 598 A.2d 386, 388-89 (D.C.1991) (en banc); see also Brown v. … See Brown v.

DeLoach v. Philip Morris Companies, Inc.

132 F. Supp. 2d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 30, 2000

Kafack v. Primerica Life Ins. Co., 934 F.Supp. 3, 5 (D.D.C.1996) (citing Van Dusen v. Barrack, 376 U.S. 612 , 84 S.Ct. 805 , 11 L.Ed.2d 945 (1964)); Chung v. Chrysler Corp., 903 F.Supp. 160, 162 (D.D.C.1995). … ("RJR”), Brown & Williamson Tobacco Co. ("Brown & Williamson”), and Lorillard Tobacco Co (''Loril-lard,”). 3 . Plaintiffs first filed their class complaint on February 16, 2000.

Saunders v. Caldera

193 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2001

Contractors of Am. v. … Thus, in Los Angeles v.

Villarreal-Dancy v. United States Department of the Air Force

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 26, 2021

authority, see Buckley v. … See Lucia v. SEC, 138 S.

Independence Federal Savings Bank v. Bender

326 F. Supp. 2d 36 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 9, 2004

He unsuccessfully sued the Bank in December 2003 to force a special shareholders meeting to remove most of the Board. Bender v. Parks, No. 03-2485(RMC). … Davenport v. Int’l Bhd. Of Teamsters, 166 F.3d 356, 360 (D.C.Cir.1999); see also Serono Lab. v. Shalala, 158 F.3d 1313, 1317-1318 (D.C.Cir.1998).

Shinogee Ex Rel. Duffy v. Fanning

234 F. Supp. 3d 39 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 13, 2017

benefits based on the Board of Veterans’ Appeals’ decision. … Board’s prior action, and (2) the Board had previously reconsidered the matter.