Case law

Wise v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · May 19, 2025

BACKGROUND Plaintiff alleges that he is a “triple-board-certified oral surgeon,” who faced, in one year, fifty-one “board complaints,” which resulted in the suspension of his license and the imposition of a $45,000 … Jones v. Changsila, 271 F. Supp. 3d 9, 21 (D.D.C. 2017) (quoting Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 93 (2007)).

Cole v. Fulwood

879 F. Supp. 2d 60 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 25, 2012

Parole Commission (“USPC”) assumed the responsibilities of the District of Columbia Board of Parole (“the Board”). See Taylor v. Reilly, No. 10-5153, 2012 WL 2892392 at *1 (D.C. Cir. 2012). … See Sellmon v. Reilly, 561 F. Supp. 2d 46, 51-52 (D.D.C. 2008). For the reasons set forth in those opinions, it again rejects the argument that the Board had unlimited discretion. B.

Price v. Barry

53 F.3d 369 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 9, 1995

The mandatory language sufficiently restricted the Board’s parole decisions so as to give rise to a protecti-ble liberty interest in parole release. In Board of Pardons v. … The use of the word “may” clearly marks the Board’s decision as discretionary. See United States v. Rodgers, 461 U.S. 677, 706 , 103 S.Ct. 2132, 2149 , 76 L.Ed.2d 236 (1983).

Zanders v. United States

678 A.2d 556 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1996

Routson had described the man at the bottom of the escalator as a Black male wearing a brown jacket and brown pants, five feet nine inches tall, 160 pounds, light complected, and in his twenties. … Officer Brown testified that during the show-up identification behind the hotel, four to six Black male suspects were presented. At the time he was shown, Zanders wore a brown jacket and a brown shirt.

James R. Blohm v. Walter N. Tobriner

350 F.2d 785 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 7, 1965

See Hyde v. Tobriner, supra,, note 1; Crawford v. McLaughlin, 109 U.S.App.D.C. 264 , 286 F.2d 821 (1960). … See Hyde v. Tobriner, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 311 , 329 F.2d 879 (1964); Lovell v. Tobriner, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 65 , 310 F.2d 870 (1962). Compare Zangardi v. Tobriner, 121 U.S.

Hodgson v. Turner

12 F. Cas. 286 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Mar 15, 1802

THE COURT, on the authority of Brown v. Barry and Clarke v. Russel [supra], refused to give the instruction as prayed. Mr.

Kun v. Finnegan, Henderson, Farabow, Garrett & Dunner

949 F. Supp. 13 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 1996

The defendant also argues that the Supreme Court’s holding in Baldwin County Welcome Ctr. v. Brown, 466 U.S. 147 , 104 S.Ct. 1723 , 80 L.Ed.2d 196 (1984) is disposi-tive. … See Brown v. Hartshorne Pub. Sch.

Salt River Project Agricultural Improvement And Power District v. United States

762 F.2d 1053 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 31, 1985

Because the Review Board "entirely failed to consider an important aspect of the problem," Motor Vehicle Manufacturers Association v. … Ass'n v.

Baptiste v. Sequoia Capital Operations, LLC

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 6, 2025

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

District of Columbia Department of Employment Services v. Vilche

934 A.2d 356 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2007

.”); Park v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 555 A.2d 1029, 1032 (D.C.1989) (discussing “multiple-hat” rule); Citizens Association of Georgetown, Inc. v. … District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 815 A.2d 762, 764 (D.C.2003) (“At a hearing before the BZA a few months later, [the Zoning Administrator] testified about the basis for his decision.”) 2 *363 ; Carroll v.

Monmouth Medical Center v. Thompson

257 F.3d 807 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 27, 2001

. v. … s 1395x(v)(1)(A)(ii)).

Legg, Mason & Company, Inc. v. MacKall & Coe, Inc.

351 F. Supp. 1367 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 13, 1972

See Brown v. Gilligan, Will & Co., 287 F.Supp. 766 (S.D.N.Y. 1968); Franklin v. Dick, 262 App.Div. 299 , 28 N.Y.S.2d 426 , aff’d, 287 N.Y. 656 , 39 N.E.2d 282 (1941); Cohen v. Thomas, 209 N.Y. 407 , 103 N.E. 708 (1913). … See Brown v. Gilligan, Will & Co., supra.

Schoen v. Consumers United Group, Inc.

670 F. Supp. 367 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 6, 1986

See, e.g., Cuddy v. Carmen, 694 F.2d 853 (D.C. Cir.1982); Sutton v. Atlantic Richfield Co., 646 F.2d 407 (9th Cir.1981); Loeb v. Textron, Inc., 600 F.2d 1003 (1st Cir.1979). … See Belle Isle Corp. v. MacBean, 29 Del.Ch. 261 , 49 A.2d 5, 9 (1946); Mecleary v. John S.

Paul D. Molineaux v. United States of America

12 F.3d 264 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jan 7, 1994

Indeed, before the Board, the Department unsuccessfully argued that section 601 provides “no law to apply,” see Citizens to Preserve Overton Park, Inc. v. … Inc. v.

Downs v. POLICE & FIRE. RETIRE. BD.

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

Fiola v. … ); Nott v.

Shakir v. Fulwood

108 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 11, 2015

See Jones v. Braxton, 647 A.2d 1116, 1117 (D.C. 1994) (§ 104.2 “is clearly not mandatory,” as § 104.11 “expressly authorizes the Board to disregard the suggested timeframes”); Hall v. … See, e.g., Kingsbury v. Fulwood, 902 F.

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.

David L. Wilkinson v. Legal Services Corporation

80 F.3d 535 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 9, 1996

Oct. 5, 1982) (upholding the validity of recess appointments to LSC’s Board), vacated as moot, sub. nom McCalpin v. Durant, 766 F.2d 535 (D.C.Cir.1985), with Mackie v. … Co. v.

Barber v. District of Columbia Government

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 13, 2019

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). … See Browning, 292 F.3d at 242.

National Ass'n of Securities Dealers, Inc. v. Securities & Exchange Commission

420 F.2d 83 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 1, 1969

v. … In Hardin v.