Case law

Carstens v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

742 F.2d 1546 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 11, 1984

In each case the Board simply concluded, as was its province to do, see Universal Camera Corp. v. National Labor Relations Board, supra, 340 U.S. at 495-97 , 71 S.Ct. at 468-469 ; Penasquitos Village, Inc. v. … GUARD v.

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.

Berrigan v. Sigler

499 F.2d 514 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 1, 1974

Zemel v. … Worthy v.

Public Defender Service v. Saint-Preux

691 A.2d 1160 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 1997

Davis v. University of the District of Columbia, 603 A.2d 849, 851 (D.C.1992). See also Office of the District of Columbia Controller v. Frost, 638 A.2d 657, 666 (D.C.1994). … The intent of the CMPA, as we have pointed out before, Sims v.

Burns v. Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs

41 F.3d 1555 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 20, 1994

The BRB affirmed the part of Judge Neus-ner’s order agreeing with the Board that the record did not demonstrate a concentration of propane sufficient to induce hypoxia. Burns v. … Labor Board v. Nevada Consolidated Copper Corp., 316 U.S. 105, 106 , 62 S.Ct. 960, 961 , 86 L.Ed. 1305 (1942).

Richard Figueroa v. Michael Pompeo

Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 10, 2019

The first board reviews all employees across a salary level – all FS-02 officers, for instance. The second board then reviews the candidates whom the Secretary did not promote from the first board’s recommendations. … See, e.g., Browning v. Dep’t of the Army, 436 F.3d 692, 697 (6th Cir. 2006) (“[E]mployers may use matrices that reward applicants who meet subjective criteria.”).

Marsh v. Johnson

263 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 20, 2003

Recovery v. District of Columbia, 923 F.Supp. 249, 252 (D.D.C.1996) (Harris, J.) (sua sponte); Purolite Int’l, Ltd. v. Rohm & Haas Co., 1992 WL 142018 , 24 U.S.P.Q.2d 1857 (E.D.Pa.1992) (upon motion); Rohm & Haas Co. v. … Sani-Top, Inc. v. N. Am.

Whittaker v. United States Department of Justice

District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 15, 2020

Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255 (1986). … Plaintiff cites Blackwell v. FBI, 646 F.3d 37 (D.C. Cir. 2011), and Mayer Brown LLP v. IRS, 562 F.3d 1190 (D.C.

Crease v. Parker

6 F. Cas. 791 · U.S. Circuit Court for the District of District of Columbia · Nov 15, 1807

He also inclined to the opinion that the acknowledgment to Harris was a fact from which the jury might infer an express promise by the defendant subsequent to his emancipation, and before the suit brought See Williams v. … Brown, 3 Bos. & P. 72, Heath, J.’s, opinion.

United States v. Rodney Cyrus, A/K/A Victor Barlow

890 F.2d 1245 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 12, 1989

United States v. Brown, 476 F.2d 933, 935 (D.C.Cir.1973). However, because the hearing date was imminent, and other issues were ripe for review, we declined to stay the case. … We rejected this very assertion only last year in United States v. Brown, 859 F.2d 974 (D.C.Cir.1988).

Leedom v. Norwich, Connecticut Printing Specialties & Paper Products Union, Local No. 494

275 F.2d 628 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 18, 1960

Court, under the authority of Leedom v. … Review of the appropriateness of the unit in that event could be had only in a proceeding in a United States Court of Appeals under section 10(e) or 10(f) of the Act. 4 National Biscuit Div. v.

Sirmans v. Brownlee

346 F. Supp. 2d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2004

V. … Blevins v. Orr, 721 F.2d 1419, 1421-21 (D.C.Cir.1983). IV.

Chrisp Heard, Jr. v. United States

348 F.2d 43 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 14, 1965

Reference in the dissent to our ambiguous if not misleading statement in Brown v. … United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 76 , 331 F.2d 822, 823 (1964), requires that the quotation from Brown and the reli- *45 anee on Robinson v.

Evergreen Cemetery Ass'n v. Burnet

45 F.2d 667 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 1, 1930

The entries upon appellant’s books confirm this view, and the Board has found it as a fact. Upon the record, therefore, we agree with the Board’s decision. United States v. Anderson, 269 U. S. 422 , 46 S. … Ed. 347 ; Lucas v. American Code Co., 280 U. S. 445 , 50 S. Ct. 202 , 74 L. Ed. 538 ; Niles Bement Pond Co. v. United States, 281 U. S. 357 , 50 S. Ct. 253 , 74 L. Ed. 901 .

Shu v. Basinger

57 A.2d 295 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 14, 1948

McWilliams v. Shepard, 75 U.S.App. D.C. 334, 127 F.2d 18 ; Yellow Cab Co. v. Sutton, D.C.Mun.App., 37 A.2d 655 . See also Lavender v. Kurn, 327 U.S. 645 , 66 S.Ct. 740 , 90 L.Ed. 916 . Of. Brown v. … Clancy, D.C.Mun.App., 43 A.2d 296 ; Capital Transit Co. v. Holloway, D.C.Mun.App., 35 A.2d 649 . See also Landfair v. Capital Transit Company, App.D.C., 1948, 165 F.2d 255 .

Aguayo, Agustin v. Harvey, Francis

476 F.3d 971 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 16, 2007

See Parisi v. … Coates v.

Glover Bottled Gas Corp., Vogel's Inc., New York Propane Corp., Synergy Gas Corp., and Synergy Group, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

47 F.3d 1230 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 3, 1995

The Board’s order, determining that the employer engaged in unfair labor practices, has already been enforced by the Second Circuit, NLRB v. … Perhaps the interest rate the Board employs to calculate back pay is too low. For the foregoing reasons, the petition is therefore denied, and the Board’s cross-application for enforcement is granted. So ordered.

A & J Cartage, Inc. v. National Labor Relations Board

44 F.3d 1031 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 2, 1994

A & J CARTAGE, INC., Petitioner, v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent. No. 93-1271. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Dec. 2, 1994. … JUDGMENT PER CURIAM. 1 This cause came to be heard on petition for review and cross-application for enforcement of the decision and order of the National Labor Relations Board ("NLRB"), and was briefed and argued by counsel

Guarrasi v. Panama Canal Co.

271 F. Supp. 678 · District Court, Canal Zone · Aug 11, 1967

I am persuaded by the opinion of Justice Holmes written in the case of Robins Dry Dock & Repair Co. v. … The recently reported decision, Henderson v.

O'Connor v. District of Columbia

921 F. Supp. 5 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 27, 1996

See District of Columbia v. Brown, 589 A.2d 384, 388 (D.C.1991). … In Brown v.