Case law

District 65, Distributive Workers of America v. National Labor Relations Board, Hartz Mountain Corporation, Intervenor. National Labor Relations Board v. The Hartz Mountain Corporation, District 65, Distributive Workers of America, Intervenor

593 F.2d 1155 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 26, 1978

P 10,830 DISTRICT 65, DISTRIBUTIVE WORKERS OF AMERICA, Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Hartz Mountain Corporation, Intervenor. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Petitioner, v. … See also Eisenberg v.

Blair v. Oesterlein Machine Co.

17 F.2d 663 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 3, 1927

St. § 6336%v) furnishes a notable exception: “Returns upon which the tax has been determined by the Commissioner shall constitute publie records; but they shall be open to inspection only upon order of the President and under … (i) For the efficient administration of the functions vested in the Board or any division thereof, any member of the Board may administer oaths, examine witnesses, and require, by subpcena ordered by the Board or any division

Roderick v. District of Columbia

10 D.C. 589 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1881

In Barnes v. … This appears to be the doctrine of the Supreme Court in the case of Barnes v.

Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians v. Ryan Zinke

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 5, 2020

Alexis de Tocqueville, Democracy in America 403 (Simon & Brown ed. 2013) (1835-1840). … Pl.’s Mot. at 54 n.9 (second alteration in original) (quoting Carpet, Linoleum & Resilient Tile Layers, Local Union No. 419 v. Brown, 656 F.2d 564, 567 (10th Cir. 1981)).

R.P. v. District of Columbia

474 F. Supp. 2d 152 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 22, 2007

Baker , in turn, relies on the Supreme Court’s decision in Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 , 148 n. 1, 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984). … See Starbuck v.

Srour v. Barnes

670 F. Supp. 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 26, 1987

The notion of allowing punitive damages in a contract milieu was born in this jurisdiction in the case of Brown v. Coates, 253 F.2d 36, 39-40 (D.C.Cir.1958). … Notwithstanding the salutary rule which Brown espouses, cases following it have sought to narrow its impact. In Den v.

Coburn v. McHugh

77 F. Supp. 3d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 30, 2014

Cone v. Caldera, 223 F.3d 789, 793 (D.C.Cir.2000) (quoting Kreis v. … Epstein v. Geren, 539 F.Supp.2d 267, 275 (D.D.C.2008); see Doyle v.

Sara Aviel v. Sergio Gor

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 5, 2025

That means the Board—not the President—has the power to remove Aviel. See Free Enter. Fund v. PCAOB, 561 U.S. 477, 493, 509 (2010). … Raines 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.

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).

Calvin Morgan Bissette, and Frances T. Bissette, for Themselves and for All Others Similarly Situated v. Colonial Mortgage Corporation of D. C.

477 F.2d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 12, 1973

Indeed, the Federal Reserve Board now apparently shares that view. … See Gardner & North Roofing & Siding Corp. v. Board of Governors of Federal Reserve System, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 329 , 464 F.2d 838 (1972). 4 .

United States v. Paul K. Strother

578 F.2d 397 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 9, 1978

In Dorman v. … In particular, he asserts that our earlier decisions in United States v. Brown, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 398 , 428 F.2d 1100 (1970), and United States v. Dorsey, 146 U.S.App.

Bruce v. McBride v. Eastman Kodak Company, and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, U.S. Department of Labor

844 F.2d 797 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 26, 1988

Crum v. General Adjustment Bureau, 738 F.2d 474, 479 (D.C.Cir.1984). … American Mutual Insurance Co. v. Jones, 426 F.2d 1263, 1265 (D.C.Cir.1970) (footnote omitted). See also Newport News Shipbuilding and Dry Dock Co. v. Director, OWCP, 592 F.2d 762, 765 (4th Cir.1979).

Hobson v. Hansen

252 F. Supp. 4 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 25, 1966

Plaintiffs also rely on O’Donoghue v. … See, e. g., Muskrat v. United States, 219 U.S. 346, 361 , 31 S.Ct. 250 , 55 L.Ed. 246 (1911); United States v.

United States v. Hall, Dennis

324 F.3d 720 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 8, 2003

P. 33 advisory committee’s note.  6 see also United States v. Kladouris, 739 F. Supp. 1221, 1225– 27 (N.D. Ill. 1990) (citing United States v. Brown, 476 F.2d 933, 935 n.11 (D.C. … P. 33(b)(1), we have since clarified that the Brown language specifically relied on was dictum.

Leslie Randolph v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission and Hoffman-Struever Waterfront, LLC

83 A.3d 756 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2014

Glasgow, Jr., and Mary Carolyn Brown were on the brief, for intervenor. … Hill v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 717 A.2d 909, 912 (D.C. 1998). Moreover, “[i]t is the longstanding policy of this court not to consider arguments raised for the first time in a reply brief.” Gathy v.

Harris v. Ashcroft

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 24, 2009

See Brown v. Marsh, 777 F.2d 8, 14 (D.C. Cir. 1985) ("[T]he administrative deadlines [of Title VII] are not jurisdictional. … Stella v. Mineta, 284 F.3d 135, 145 (D.C. Cir. 2002) (citing Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 452 (D.C. Cir. 1999)).

Downs v. POLICE & FIRE. RETIRE. BD.

666 A.2d 860 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1995

Fiola v. … ); Nott v.

Matter of As

614 A.2d 534 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1992

Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1017 (D.C.1991) (citing Commonwealth v. Jackson, 459 Pa. 669, 673-673 , 331 A.2d 189, 191 (1975)). … Our decision in Brown v.

Liquor Salesmen's Union Local 2 of the State of New York, Distillery, Rectifying, Wine & Allied Workers' International Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Charmer Industries, Inc., Intervenors. Charmer Industries, Inc., Star Industries, Inc., Standard Wine & Liquor Co., Inc., Peerless Importers, Inc., and National Distillers Distributing Co. v. National Labor Relations Board, Park & Tilford & Motel & Club, Divisions of Knickerbocker Liquor Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, Amalgamated Transit Union, Afl-Cio, Local Division 1309 v. National Labor Relations Board, Bayshore Transit Management, Inc., D/B/A National City Transit, Intervenor

664 F.2d 1200 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 31, 1981

It affords the losing party a choice denied the Board when it proceeds under section 10(e)." Ball v. … Co. v.