Case law

United States ex rel. De Yturbide v. Metropolitan Club

11 App. D.C. 180 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 9, 1897

Rex v. Richardson, supra; Com. v. St. Patrick Ben. Soc., supra; Gregg v. Mass. Med. Soc., 111 Mass. 185 ; Lambert v. Addison, 46 L. T. 25. … In the case of Gardner v. Freemantle, 19 W.

Whitwell v. United States ex rel. Selden

58 F.2d 895 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 2, 1932

This appeal is by the board of education of the District of Columbia from a judgment of the Supreme Court of the District awarding appellee, plaintiff below, a writ of mandamus to compel the board to restore her to the position … In Blair v. United States, Ex Rel. Hellman, 45 App. D.

In re Steinberg

953 A.2d 306 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2008

We adopt the Board’s recommendation. … So Ordered. .See Attorney Grievance Commission v. Andrew M. Steinberg, 395 Md. 337 , 910 A.2d 429 (2006).

Daniel v. Smoot

316 F. Supp. 3d 79 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 11, 2018

Defendant previously cited as evidence of the Board's practices two of the cases it now touts- Hall v. Henderson , 672 A.2d 1047 (D.C. 1996), and Blair-Bey v. Quick , 151 F.3d 1036 (D.C. … In White v.

In Re Luvara

942 A.2d 1125 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2008

Reconsideration was denied on March 13, 2007. 1 Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel takes exception to the Board’s recommendation. … (v) The actor has suffered any prior conviction for any violation of this section or any predecessor law hereto, or has been convicted, under any Federal statute or statute of any other state, of an act which would be a violation

Herrod v. Peoples Drug Stores, Inc.

417 F. Supp. 747 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 20, 1976

Unemployment Compensation Board’s conduct. … Federation of Civic Associations v.

Jose Maria Gastelum-Quinones v. William P. Rogers, Attorney General of the United States

286 F.2d 824 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 9, 1961

(See Schleich v. … Ng Fung Ho v. White, 1921, 259 U.S. 276 , 42 S.Ct. 492 , 66 L.Ed. 938 , Fong Haw Tan v. Phelan, 1947, 333 U.S. 6 , 68 S.Ct. 374 , 92 L.Ed. 433 .

Winstead v. EMC Mortgage Corp.

697 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 22, 2010

Macharia v. United States, 334 F.3d 61, 64, 67 (D.C.Cir.2003); Holy Land Found. for Relief & Dev. v. Ashcroft, 333 F.3d 156, 165 (D.C.Cir.2003); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . … Warren v. District of Columbia, 353 F.3d 36, 40 (D.C.Cir.2004); Browning, 292 F.3d at 242 . “Threadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice.”

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.

Neustar, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission

857 F.3d 886 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 26, 2017

Murphy, Tyrone Brown, Andrew G. McBride, Thomas J. Navin, and Brett A. Shumate.  2 David M. … In support, it urges that the Supreme Court, in AT&T Corp. v. Iowa Utilities Board, 525 U.S. 366, 383 n.9 (1999), “recognized that ‘Section 251(e) . . . requires the Commission to exercise its rulemaking authority.’”

Cole v. Harrison

271 F. Supp. 2d 51 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 29, 2002

See Jago v. … See Brandon v. District of Columbia Board of Parole, 823 F.2d 644, 648-49 (D.C.Cir.1987).

Al-Hawsawi v. Biden

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 13, 2024

Brown v. District of Columbia, 514 F.3d 1279, 1283 (D.C. Cir. 2008) (quoting Estelle, 429 U.S. at 106). … And as my - colleagues in those cases found, Sa/ahi is distinguishable factually: the periodic review board there had “discretion” in considering a detainee’s status, as did the Secretary of Defense in accepting the board

American Auto Trimming Co. v. Lucas

37 F.2d 801 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 6, 1930

Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commission, 200 U. S. 361 , 26 S. Ct. 272 , 50 L. Ed. 515 ; National Lead Co. v. United States, 252 U. S. 140 , 40 S. Ct. 237 , 64 L. Ed. 496 ; Uniform Printing & S. Co. v. … Bernhardt v. City & S. Ry. Co., 49 App. D. C. 265, 263 F. 1009 . Parts of the depositions considered by the Board were never in evidence, and should not have been considered.

Watrous v. District of Columbia

135 F.2d 654 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 9, 1943

The board may affirm, cancel, reduce, or increase such assessment.” 9 [Italics supplied] In Crawford v. … Co. v. Backus, 154 U.S. 421 , 14 S.Ct. 1114 , 38 L.Ed. 1031 ; Birch v.

Padgett v. District of Columbia

17 D.C. App. 255 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 6, 1900

Flournoy v. Payne, 28 Ark. 87 ; Ex parte Pearce, 44 Ark. 509 ; State v. Browning, 27 N. J. Law, 527; State v. Newark, 30 N. J. Law, 303. As was said by the court in the case of State v. Jersey Water Com., 30 N. J. … Paul v. Warren, 16 How. Pr. Rep. 379 ; Dorsey v. Davis, 2 N. C. *264 280 ; Ledbetter v. Lofton, 5 N. C. 184 ; King v. Rentfroe, 1 Tenn. 191 .

Gant v. Reilly

224 F. Supp. 2d 26 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 11, 2002

Board and not the U.S. Commission. … In Allston v.

Tate v. Burke

131 F.R.D. 363 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1990

In Brown v. … In Brown , the court denied the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration of an order dismissing his complaint.

United States v. Civil Aeronautics Board, American Airlines, Inc., and Northwest Airlines, Inc., Intervenors. United States of America v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Braniff Airways, Inc., and Northwest Airlines, Inc., Intervenors

510 F.2d 769 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 31, 1975

Bell v. … TWA v. Civil Aeronautics Board, 336 U.S. 601 , 69 S.Ct. 756 , 93 L.Ed. 911 (1949). Mr.

Hahn v. University of the District of Columbia

789 A.2d 1252 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2002

Kegley v. District of Columbia, 440 A.2d 1013, 1019 (D.C.1982) (citation omitted); accord, e.g., Harrison v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, 758 A.2d 19, 22 (D.C.2000); Stokes v. … See Board of Community College Trustees v.

Zegeye v. Liss

70 A.3d 1208 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 2013

Shaff v. Skahill, 617 A.2d 960, 963 (D.C.1992) (citation omitted). … The Arbitration Board’s Rule of Procedure 19(m) is unequivocal on the matter: Hearings are neither transcribed nor recorded by [the Arbitration Board].