Case law

Opinions from 1658 to today.

FiltersDC

10,000+ results

5.13s

  • Mason v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

    562 A.2d 644 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1989

    Fidelity & Guaranty Co. v. Branch, 178 Ga.App. 853 , 344 S.E.2d 714 , cert. denied, (1986); Sullivan v. Empire Equipment Engineering Co., 492 A.2d 1212 (R.I.1985); room and board, see, e.g., Roadway Express, Inc. v. … See Public Employee Relations Board v. Washington Teachers’ Union Local 6, AFT, 556 A.2d 206, 207 (D.C.1989); Reichley v.

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • Swan Creek Communications, Inc. v. Federal Communications Commission, Welch Communications, Inc., Intervenor

    39 F.3d 1217 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 22, 1994

    WHW Enterprises, Inc. v. F.C.C., 753 F.2d 1132 , 1139 (D.C.Cir.1985); Weybum Broadcasting Ltd. Partnership v. F.C.C., 984 F.2d 1220, 1228 (D.C.Cir.1993). … Review Board II, 7 F.C.C.R. at 4547. See RKO General, 670 F.2d at 234; Wadeco, Inc. v. F.C.C., 628 F.2d 122, 129 (D.C.Cir.1980).

    Cited 12 timesPublished
  • United States v. Ferrara

    847 F. Supp. 964 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 28, 1993

    Hanson v. Denckla, 357 U.S. 235, 253 , 78 S.Ct. 1228, 1239-40 , 2 L.Ed.2d 1283 (1958); accord Asahi Metal Industry Co. v. … Trades Dep't, AFL-CIO v.

    Cited 9 timesPublished
  • Robert Johnson v. DC Dept. of Health

    District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 2017

    Faulkenstein v. … Bradley v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Baker v. England

    397 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 31, 2005

    The Fiscal Year 2005 Lieutenant Commander Selection Board (“FY05 Selection Board”), and the Fiscal Year 2006 Lieutenant Commander Selection Board (“FY06 Selection Board”), which convened in the Fall of 2003 and 2004 respectively … Ass’n v. State Farm Mut. Auto. Ins. Co., 463 U.S. 29, 43 , 103 S.Ct. 2856 , 77 L.Ed.2d 443 (1983); see also County of L.A. v.

    Cited 5 timesPublished
  • Maniar v. Wolf

    District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 1, 2026

    When she was again unable to print her own boarding pass, she had to speak with an airline clerk who “had to get permission from . . . the TSC[] before issuing [her] a boarding pass.” Id. ¶ 94. … See, e.g., Abdi v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Alley v. Resolution Trust Corp.

    790 F. Supp. 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 23, 1992

    The Court rejects plaintiffs’ argument that the Supreme Court’s decision in Fort Halifax Packing Co. v. … See Friesen v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • Sullivan v. Yellow Cab Company

    212 A.2d 616 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 1965

    DeFoe v. … The first deals with the duty of appellee’s driver to assist decedent in boarding his cab.

    Cited 8 timesPublished
  • United States v. National Ass'n of Real Estate Boards

    80 F. Supp. 350 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 4, 1948

    Last Tuesday and Wednesday there was argued before this court two motions for judgments of acquittal; one made by the National Association of Real Estate Boards and one made by the Washington Real Estate Board, two co-defendants … And I was particularly impressed by the language of the court in the Duluth case, (State v.

    Cited 2 timesPublished
  • MacKay v. Hoffman

    403 F. Supp. 467 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 4, 1975

    Virginia Petroleum Jobbers Ass’n v. FPC, 104 U.S.App.D.C. 106 , 259 F.2d 921 (1958), Murray v. Kunzig, 149 U.S.App.D.C. 256 , 462 F.2d 871 (1972), rev’d on other grounds, sub nom., Sampson v. … As is so in the case of the Army Board for Correction of Military Records, see Ogden v. Zuckert, 111 U.S.App.D.C. at 401 , 298 F.2d at 315 ; Turner v. Callaway, 371 F.Supp. at 191 .

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Jozef Sikora v. Edward J. Brenner, Commissioner of Patents

    379 F.2d 134 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 2, 1967

    Rendleman v. Ladd, 197 F.Supp. 304, 309 (D.D.C.1961). … See Moore v. Coats Co., 270 F.2d 410, 411 (3rd Cir. 1959). 5 . See, e. g., Aktiebolaget Bofors v. United States, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 92, 95 , 194 F.2d 145, 148-149 (1951); Beeler v.

    Cited 22 timesPublished
  • Louisiana & Arkansas Ry. Co. v. Helvering

    70 F.2d 286 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 12, 1934

    Since the enactment of section 280 (a), supra, the Board of Tax Appeals has adopted this construction in the cases of Henry Cappellini v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 16 B. T. A. 802; Louis Costanzo v. … Duval v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 21 B. T. A. 1357; Wayne Body Corp. v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, 24 B. T. A. 524. The determination of the Board of Tax Appeals in the present ease is affirmed.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Lakner v. U.S. Department of Defense

    755 F. Supp. 2d 132 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 15, 2010

    Settles v. U.S. Parole Comm’n, 429 F.3d 1098, 1107 (D.C.Cir.2005). … Califano v. Sanders, 430 U.S. 99, 107 , 97 S.Ct. 980 , 51 L.Ed.2d 192 (1977).

    Cited 1 timesPublished
  • Commonwealth of Puerto Rico v. Federal Maritime Board and United States of America, United States Atlantic & Gulf-Puerto Rico Conference, Waterman Steamship Corporation and Waterman Steamshjip Corporation of Puerto Rico, Intervenors. United States Atlantic & Gulfpuerto Rico Conference v. Federal Maritime Board and United States of America, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Intervenor

    288 F.2d 419 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 23, 1961

    The Board 'should make the basis of its action reasonably clear. We cannot find that it did so here.' Radio Station KFH Co. v. … Federal Communications Commission, 101 U.S.App.D.C. 164 , 166, 247 F.2d 570, 572 ; Pacific Far East Line, Inc. v. Federal Maritime Board, 107 U.S.App.D.C. 155 , 275 F.2d 184 . Cf. Secretary of Agriculture v.

    Cited 10 timesPublished
  • Hill v. Geren

    District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 11, 2009

    Homer v. Roche, 226 F. Supp. 2d 222, 226 (D.D.C. 2002) (finding that military board did not provide adequate explanation for its denial of plaintiff’s request for promotion to colonel). … That argument appears nowhere in the Board’s decision, contrary to the “‘fundamental rule of administrative law’” that this Court must judge the Board’s decision solely by the grounds invoked by the Board. Poole v.

    Cited 0 timesPublished
  • Kennedy-Jarvis v. Wells

    195 F. Supp. 3d 230 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 1, 2016

    In March 2013, the plaintiffs filed suit in this court against Parker and Hope Brown, the successor representative. Jarvis v. Parker, 13 F. Supp. 3d 74, 75 (D.D.C. 2014). … Roa v. Roa, 985 A.2d 1225, 1231 (N.J. 2010) (quoting Wilson v. Wal- Mart Stores, 729 A.2d 1006, 1010 (N.J. 1999)).

    Cited 4 timesPublished
  • United States v. Milton L. Smith

    901 F.2d 1116 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 1990

    Inside a leather tote bag, Brennan found a closed brown paper bag. He opened the brown paper bag which, in turn, contained a large plastic bag filled with a white powder, later found to be cocaine. … See, e.g., United States v. Maragh, 894 F.2d 415 (D.C.Cir.1990); United States v. Winston, 892 F.2d 112 (D.C.Cir.1989); United States v. Joseph, 892 F.2d 118 (D.C.Cir.1989); and United States v.

    Cited 26 timesPublished
  • Ege v. United States Department of Homeland Security

    784 F.3d 791 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 28, 2015

    Latif v. Holder, 686 F.3d 1122, 1129 (9th Cir.2012). … Lee’s Summit, Mo. v. Surface Transp.

    Cited 29 timesPublished
  • Armco Steel Corp. v. International Armament Corp.

    249 F. Supp. 954 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 11, 1966

    With regard to the Court of Customs and Patent Appeals affirmance of the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board in Bendix Aviation Corporation v. … Co. v.

    Cited 7 timesPublished
  • Washington v. McGrath

    182 F.2d 375 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 17, 1950

    Schwellenbach, 3 Bailey v. Richardson, 4 and International Workers Order v. McGrath. 5 Upon authority of those cases, the judgment of the District Court in the -case at bar must be affirmed. … Under the rule of National War Labor Board v. Montgomery Ward & Co., 6 the court was justified in taking that state of the pleadings into account in acting upon the motion to dismiss.

    Cited 7 timesPublished

Ask Donna

Ask Donna

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.