Case law

Payne v. District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2011

See id. at 1276; Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). B. … Brown v. Aramark Corp., 591 F.

Hoffman v. District of Columbia

643 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 17, 2009

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 . … See Brown v.

Doyle v. England

193 F. Supp. 2d 202 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 29, 2002

In the absence of clear and persuasive evidence to the contrary, courts should presume that the Secretary and selection boards performed fairly and lawfully. See Boyd v. … See Nation v.

Munsey v. Morton

507 F.2d 1202 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 17, 1974

decision in Phillips v. … Munsey v. Smitty Baker Coal Co., supra note 25, 79 Interior Dec. at 504. . Munsey v. Smitty Baker Coal Co., supra note 25. . 30 C.F.R. § 301.68 (1971) allocates the burden of proof. . Munsey v.

Ernest Mitchell v. John Phelan

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 13, 2026

MITCHELL, LIEUTENANT, APPELLANT v. … Standard of Review When litigants challenge factfinding by a Board for Correction of military records, we apply “an unusually deferential application of the ‘arbitrary or capricious’ standard.” McKinney v.

Public Citizen, Inc. v. U.S. Department of Health & Human Services

332 F.3d 654 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 2003

Brown v. Watt, 668 F.2d 1290, 1304 (D.C.Cir.1981). Section 1320c-3(a)(14) states that the PRO “shall inform the individual (or representative) of the organization’s final disposition of the complaint.” … See Brown v.

Dana Farber Cancer Institute v. Burwell

216 F. Supp. 3d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 24, 2016

“The final decision of the [Board] is subject to judicial review and may be set aside under the terms of the [APA].” Eagle Healthcare, Inc. v. Sebelius, 969 F. … Hosp. of Monterey Peninsula v.

Randolph v. United States

882 A.2d 210 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2005

Brown v. United States, 840 A.2d 82, 89 (D.C.2004). The statement here at issue presents the precise converse of what is permitted under Brown ; it provides details of the crime, but no identification of the culprits. … In United States v.

Empire Health Foundation v. Burwell

209 F. Supp. 3d 261 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 19, 2016

Ctr., Inc. v. Sebelius, 37 F. … Both sides agree that this “if” signals that reinstatement of any appeal would be “discretionary with the Board.” Opp. at 19; Reply at 9 (agreeing appeal is in Board’s “discretion”).

Morrison v. Honorable Secretary of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 5, 2011

Cir. 1989); see also Musengo v. White, 286 F.3d 535, 538 (D.C. Cir. 2002); Cone v. Caldera, 223 F.3d 789, 793 (D.C. Cir. 2000). … See Quinn v. District of Columbia, 740 F.

Palumbo v. Tele-Communications, Inc.

157 F.R.D. 129 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 26, 1994

International Electronics Corp. v. Flanzer, 527 F.2d 1288, 1293 (2nd Cir.1975). See also Aetna Casualty and Surety Co. v. … Kingsepp v. Wesleyan University, 142 F.R.D. 597, 599 (S.D.N.Y.1992) (quoting Amos v. Board of Directors, 408 F.Supp. 765, 774 (E.D.Wis.1976)).

In re Kenneth A. Martin

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 2014

The following authorities hold that funds need not be returned: Board of Prof’l Responsibility v. … Johnson Co. v.

Walter F. Costello v. Agency for International Development

843 F.2d 540 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 5, 1988

Boswell Memorial Hosp. v. Heckler, 749 F.2d 788 , 790 n. 2 (D.C.Cir.1984). 6 . … United States v. Price, 361 U.S. 304, 313 , 80 S.Ct. 326, 332 , 4 L.Ed.2d 334 (1960).

Grell v. Trump

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 12, 2018

Grell’s complaint also vaguely sketches a claim under the Administrative Procedure Act (“APA”), seeking review of an Army Board for Correction of Military Records (“ABCMR”) determination. … Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). A.

The George Hyman Construction Company v. James E. Brooks

963 F.2d 1532 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 15, 1992

In fact, the Board so held in Columbus Cherry v. Newport News Shipbuilding and Drydock Co., 8 BRBS 857 (1978). … We note that we owe the Board’s statutory interpretations no special deference as under Chevron U.S.A. Inc. v.

Harborlite Corporation v. Interstate Commerce Commission and United States of America, Southern Pacific Transportation Co., Intervenor

613 F.2d 1088 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 15, 1979

See, e. g., Board of Trade v. … See Prince Albert Pulp Co. v. Canadian National Railways, 349 I.C.C. 482 , 491 (1974); Board of Trade v.

Air Line Pilots Association, International v. Department of Transportation, Trans International Airlines, Inc., Intervenor

791 F.2d 172 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 16, 1986

Burlington Truck Lines, Inc. v. … Inc. v.

Continental Bank and Trust Company v. William McChesney Martin, Jr.

303 F.2d 214 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 3, 1962

Schilling v. Rogers, 363 U.S. 666, 677 , 80 S.Ct. 1288 , 4 L.Ed.2d 1478 ; Skelly Oil Co. v. … Appellant correctly states that this court in Federal Trade Comm. v.

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.

Norris v. District of Columbia Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 21, 2010

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA NICOLE NORRIS, Plaintiff, v. … MEMORANDUM OPINION Nicole Norris brings this action against the Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia (“Board”)1 alleging reverse race discrimination in violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1981 and