Case law

Moore v. Marsh

568 F. Supp. 785 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 17, 1983

Judicial review of the Board’s determinations is limited. The appellant must show that the Board’s decision was arbitrary, capricious, unsupported by substantial evidence, or otherwise unlawful. Grieg v. … The Court may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board. Grieg v. United States, 640 F.2d at 1265 . Its task is to review the record “to insure that the pertinent laws and regulations were followed.” Amato v.

Great Lakes Airlines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Common Carrier Railroads, Intervenor, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Intervenor, United Air Lines, Inc., Intervenor. Central Air Transport, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, United Air Lines, Inc., Intervenor, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Intervenor, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Common Carrier Railroads, Intervenors. Air Transport Associates, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Intervenor, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Intervenors. Continental Charters, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Intervenor, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Intervenors. Air Cargo Express, Inc., a Corporation v. Civil Aeronautics Board, Trans World Airlines, Inc., Intervenor, the Atchison, Topeka and Santa Fe Railway Company, Intervenors

294 F.2d 217 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 21, 1961

Currey cites National Labor Relations Board v. Burns 25 and Donnelly Garment Co. v. National Labor Relations Board 26 in support of its position, but these cases are inapposite. … United Air Lines, 364 U.S. 297 , 81 S.Ct. 267 , 5 L.Ed.2d 89 (1960) 6 E. g., United Air Lines, Inc. v. Civil Aeronautics Board, supra note 5; American Airlines v.

Alexander T. Deutsch v. United States Atomic Energy Commission and United States of America

401 F.2d 404 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 26, 1968

Under 10 C.F.R. § 80.61 (e) (1968) the decision of the Board became the final action of the Commission. 5 . Consolo v. FMC, 383 U.S. 607 , 86 S.Ct. 1018 , 16 L.Ed.2d 131 (1966); FCC v. … Rankin, 295 U.S. 123 , 55 S.Ct. 732 , 79 L.Ed. 1343 (1935); Palmer v. CIR, 302 U.S. 63 , 58 S.Ct. 67 , 82 L.Ed. 50 (1937); NLRB v. Waterman S. S.

POBLETE v. Goldberg

680 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 29, 2009

As required by Fox v. … Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C.1977).

Harris v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission

505 A.2d 66 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1986

Carey v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, 304 A.2d 18, 20 (D.C.1973). In the present case, the record was closed for evidentiary purposes on September 8, 1980. … Code § l-1509(e) (1981); Roumel v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, supra, 417 A.2d at 407 ; Spevak v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 407 A.2d 549, 553 (D.C.1979).

Burmeister v. Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation

943 F. Supp. 2d 83 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 6, 2013

Overton Park, Inc. v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 415 (1971), abrogated on other grounds by Califano v. … v. Livingston, 376 U.S. 543, 550 (1964); see also Transp.-Commc’n Emps. Union v. Union Pac. R.R.

East Bay Union of MacHinists Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, and United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation, Intervenor. Fibreboard Paper Products Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, East Bay Union of MacHinists Local 1304, United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, and United Steelworkers of America, Afl-Cio, Intervenors

322 F.2d 411 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 27, 1963

v. … See National Labor Relations Board v. Seven-Up Bottling Co., 344 U.S. 344 , 73 S.Ct. 287 , 97 L.Ed. 377 (1953); Phelps-Dodge Corp. v.

Holston v. Vance-Cooks

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2013

See Allen v. … Date: November 5, 2013 Ketanji Brown Jackson KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Heartland Regional Medical Center v. Leavitt

415 F.3d 24 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 13, 2005

Ass’n v. … v.

Reneau v. District of Columbia

676 A.2d 913 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 30, 1996

Thompson, 451 A.2d 1177, 1193 (D.C.1982) (quoting Bakers Local Union No. 118 v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 437 A.2d 176 , 179 n. 6 (D.C.1981)). I. … Williamson v. Board of Dentistry, 647 A.2d 389, 394 (D.C.1994) (citing Washington Post Co. v. District Unemployment Compensation Bd., 377 A.2d 436, 439 (D.C.1977)).

Smith v. District of Columbia

430 F.3d 450 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 6, 2005

See Brown v. City of Tucson, 336 F.3d 1181, 1186-87 (9th Cir. 2003); New England Health Care Employees Union v. R.I. Legal Servs., 273 F.3d 425, 429 (1st Cir. 2001); Rhoads v. … Hilti, Inc., 108 F.3d 1319, 1323 (10th Cir. 1997); see also Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 456 n.10 (D.C.

Mason v. Rock Creek Plaza, Inc.

164 F. Supp. 269 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 30, 1958

Hutchison v. Board of Zoning Appeals, 1953, 140 Conn. 381 , 100 A.2d 839 . Here the Zoning Commission was clear in its intent to enact a regulation that would include commercial adjuncts for The Woodner. … Unless the Board’s decision is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, courts should not substitute their judgment for the Board’s. Selden v.

Karcher v. Islamic Republic of Iran

District Court, District of Columbia · May 7, 2025

Brown, and Ryan A. … Brown, and Ryan A. Balmer. B.

Doe v. Secretary of the Air Force

563 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 1982

Plaintiff relies on the case of Matlovich v. … In the case of Roelofs v.

Sium v. Office of State Superintendent of Education

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2019

Henderson v. … See Chase v. Pub. Def.

Miller v. Department of the Navy

601 F. Supp. 2d 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 2009

Kreis v. Sec’y of the Air Force, 866 F.2d 1508, 1511 (D.C.Cir.1989); see also Guy v. … Homer v. Roche, 226 F.Supp.2d 222, 225 (D.D.C.2002).

Ramey v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

950 A.2d 33 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2008

District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 625 A.2d 886 (D.C.1993); Spartin v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 584 A.2d 564 (D.C.1990); and Dailey v. … On petitioner’s appeal to the Compensation Review Board (CRB or Board), that body likewise concluded that he had not invoked the presumption of compensability “by showing that a particular incident or situation at work was

U-Ahk-Vroman-Sanchez v. United States Department of Defense

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2021

Stewart v. Sackley, 251 F. Supp. 3d 138, 156 (D.D.C. 2017) (cleaned up); see also Fred Meyer Stores, Inc. v. NLRB, 865 F.3d 630, 638 (D.C. … V.

Victor Coley v. United States

196 A.3d 414 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2018

.; accord, Leake v. United States, 77 A.3d 971, 975 (D.C. 2013). 11 Brown v. United States, 59 A.3d 967, 976 (D.C. 2013) (quoting Davis v. … The obligatory instruction quoted by Brown derives from Crowder, 383 A.2d at 342 n.11. 21 See Davis v. United States, 669 A.2d 680, 684 (D.C. 1995).

McCraney v. United States

983 A.2d 1041 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2009

See id.; see also Brown v. … Irick v. United States, 565 A.2d 26, 31 (D.C.1989) (emphasis in the original). 50 . United States v. Brown, 700 A.2d 760, 763-64 (D.C.1997). 51 . Id. 52 .