Case law

Boyd Leedom, as Chairman, as Members of the National Labor Relations Board, an Agency of the United States Government v. Fitch Sanitarium, Inc.

294 F.2d 251 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 29, 1961

The District Court erred in ordering the Board to assert jurisdiction unless the decision of the Board not to do so deprived the Sanitarium of a right assured to it by the Act. Leedom v. … Thus, the question is whether the Act, as amended, left no discretion in the Board to decline jurisdiction over the question concerning representation presented by the Sanitarium. See Leedom v.

Jeannette Rankin Brigade v. Chief of Capitol Police

278 F. Supp. 233 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 9, 1968

Accord, Turner v. City of Memphis, 369 U.S. 350 , 82 S.Ct. 805 , 7 L.Ed. 762 (1962). … Cox v. State of Louisiana, 379 U.S. 536 , 85 S.Ct. 453 , 13 L.Ed.2d 471 (1965).

Sea-Land Service, Inc. v. Kreps

566 F.2d 763 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 30, 1977

The authority vested in the Secretary of Commerce by the Merchant Marine Act has been delegate^ to the Maritime Subsidy Board. j . J.A. at 133-136. . See generally States Marine International, Inc. v. … The CDS subsidy is governed by Title V of the Act, 46 U.S.C. § 1151 et seq. . 46 U.S.C. § 1171 (a) (emphasis added). . Id. at §§ 1171(a)(1), (2), (3), (4). See generally Bloomfield S.S.

Pacific Far East Line, Inc. v. United States

246 F.2d 711 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 20, 1957

Certainly the question of adequacy of service was peculiarly within the competency of the Board to resolve. United States Nav. Co. v. Cunard S.S. Co., 1932, 284 U.S. 474, 485 , 52 S.Ct. 247 , 76 L.Ed. 408 . … The Board added: “No order will be entered at this time.

Walker v. Chief Quarantine Officer

69 F. Supp. 980 · District Court, Canal Zone · Aug 14, 1943

Crandall v. Nevada, 6 Wall. 35 , 18 L.Ed. 744 ; Ives v. South Buffalo R. Co., 201 N.Y. 271 , 94 N.E. 431 , 34 L.R.A., N.S. 162. … Vol. 6 C.J.S., Army and Navy; § 34, page 417; Schreiner v. United States, 43 Ct.Cl. 480 .

Lockett v. Metropolitan Police Department of the District of Columbia

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 27, 2023

Godfrey v. Iverson, 559 F.3d 569, 571 (D.C. Cir. 2009) (quoting Brown v. Argenbright Sec., Inc., 782 A.2d 752, 760 (D.C. 2001)). … DeWitt v. District of Columbia, 43 A.3d 291, 296 (D.C. 2012). A favorable termination “must reflect on the merits of the underlying action.” Brown v. Carr, 503 A.2d 1241, 1246 (D.C. 1986).

Shulman v. Washington Hospital Center

222 F. Supp. 59 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 9, 1963

Thus in Levin v. … Wood River Township Hospital, 18 Ill.App.2d 263 , 152 N.E. 2d 205 ; Alpert v. Board of Governors of City Hospital, 286 App.Div. 542 ,145 N.Y. S.2d 534.

Alston v. Geithner

950 F. Supp. 2d 140 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 19, 2013

P. 56(a); see also Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 247-48 (1986); Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 895 (D.C. Cir. 2006). … Strong support for the Treasury’s decision lies in the two documents that the Board was able to locate.

St. Helena Clear Lake Hospital v. Azar, II

District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 31, 2021

. § 1395x(v)(1)(A). … Luke Community Health Care v.

Coburn v. McHugh

744 F. Supp. 2d 177 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2010

Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 , 127 S.Ct. 1955 , 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) (citations omitted); see also Ashcroft v. … Furthermore, when reviewing a decision by a military correction board, a Court must do so under an “unusually deferential application of the ‘arbitrary and capricious’ standard of the APA.” Musengo v.

Glascoe v. Miletich

83 A.2d 587 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 1951

As was said by us in Mitchell v. … Creighton v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 77 A.2d 559 ; Lippincott v. Kerr, 59 App.D.C. 290 , 40 F.2d 802 ; Robertson v. Ramsay, 54 App.D.C. 346 , 298 F. 557 . Affirmed.

United States v. Exxon Corp.

470 F. Supp. 674 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 17, 1979

In Service v. … In Vitarelli v.

Dobyns v. United States

30 A.3d 155 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2011

In this appeal, citing Brown v. … Brown, 35 App.D.C. at 555 .

Taylor v. Jackson

273 F. 345 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 2, 1921

Satterlee v. Williams, 20 App. D. C. 393. … Canadian Religious Ass’n v. Parmenter, 180 Mass. 415 , 62 N. E. 740 ; Jones v. State, 28 Neb. 495 , 44 N. W. 658 , 7 L. R. A. 325; Jennings v. Scarborough, 56 N. J. Law, 401, 28 Atl. 559 ; Bouldin v.

Weeda v. District of Columbia

521 A.2d 1156 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1987

In Hayes v. … See Sponaugle v.

Gordon v. Holder

632 F.3d 722 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 18, 2011

Before: ROGERS, BROWN and GRIFFITH, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. … NLRB v.

Texaco, Inc. v. Federal Power Commission

329 F.2d 223 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 17, 1963

Wheeler v. National Labor Relations Board, 114 U.S.App.D.C. 255 , 314 F.2d 260 (1963). Compare Universal Camera Corp. v. … See National Labor Relations Board v. National Laundry Co., 78 U.S.App.D.C. 184 , 138 F.2d 589 (1943). In Wheeler v.

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.

Bechtel Associates, P.C. And Lumbermens Mutual Casualty Co. v. Sally T. Sweeney and Director, Office of Workers' Compensation Programs, Dol

834 F.2d 1029 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 4, 1987

The Benefits Review Board (the Board) affirmed the AU’s findings. Bechtel now petitions this court for review of the Board’s decision. We affirm the Board. I. Background John A. … See Board Order at 3. We uphold the determination of the Board.

Blake Construction Company, Inc. v. United States of America, United States of America v. Aetna Casualty and Surety Company

296 F.2d 393 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Aug 3, 1961

National Electronic Labs., Inc., v. United States, Ct.Cl. 1960, 180 F.Supp. 337, 341-342 . … West Lumber Sales v.