Case law

United States v. Bryan

72 F. Supp. 58 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 21, 1947

Somewhat similar subpoenas were held valid in Brown v. United States, 276 U.S. 134, 138 , 48 S.Ct. 288 , 72 L.Ed. 500 ; and Wheeler v. United States, 226 U.S. 478, 483 , 33 S.Ct. 158 , 57 L.Ed. 309 . … Finally, in the case of United States v. Edward K.

Wilson v. CARCO Group, Inc.

518 F.3d 40 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 29, 2008

Before: TATEL, BROWN and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. BROWN, Circuit Judge: Derek T. … See Holcomb v. Powell, 433 F.3d 889, 903 (D.C.

Kamal Jahanbein v. The Ndidi Condominium Unit Owners Association, Inc.

85 A.3d 824 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2014

Unit Owners Ass’n v. Bolandz, 978 A.2d 1188, 1191 (D.C. 2009); see also Burgess v. … Co. v. Massman Const.

Rogler v. Biglow

District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 29, 2009

Browning v. Clinton, 292 F.3d 235, 242 (D.C. Cir. 2002). “[A] complaint 3 Ms. Rogler appears to be attempting to state a cause of action under Bivens v. … Brown v. GSA, 425 U.S. 820, 835 (1976). She cannot recast her Title VII retaliation claims as constitutional claims. Ethnic Employees of the Library of Cong. v. Boorstin, 751 F.2d 1405, 1414-15, n.12 & 13 (D.C.

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.

In re Timothy D. Naegele

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2020

Albers was still alive, but had not retained the respondent or granted power- of-attorney to her son or daughter-in-law to file suit on her behalf. 2 Albers v. Naegele, No. B240455, 2013 WL 5945676 (Cal. … V. Conclusion To summarize, the Board’s Report regarding the applicability of the  36 exception to reciprocal discipline under Rule XI, § 11(c)(4) is accepted.

Vikonics, Inc. v. United States

749 F. Supp. 315 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 1990

Foundation on Economic Trends v. Heckler, 756 F.2d 143, 157 (D.C. *318 Cir.1985). As the court explained in WMATA v. … Brown Aff. at para. 32.

Fid. & Dep. Co. v. PRESIDENT & DIRECTORS, ETC.

483 F. Supp. 1142 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 7, 1980

United States v. Seckinger, 397 U.S. 203, 216 , 90 S.Ct. 880, 888 , 25 L.Ed.2d 224 (1970). This canon of construction has been vigorously applied in insurance cases. See Imperial Insurance, Inc. v. … Inc. v. Travelers Indemnity Co., 376 F.Supp. 901, 906 (W.D.Okl. 1973).

Adtranz ABB Daimler-Benz Transportation, N.A. v. National Labor Relations

253 F.3d 19 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2001

However, “the Board’s direction of a new election is not a final order reviewable under either section 10(e) or section 10(f) of the NLRA.” Gold Coast Restaurant v. … This distinction is fully consistent with Linn v.

Arif Naqvi v. Turkish Airlines, Inc.

80 F. Supp. 3d 234 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2015

See Dogbe v. … ”— manifest on board the airline itself.

Powers v. Donley

District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 2012

See Sierra Club v. Mainella, 459 F. Supp. 2d 76, 89-90 (D.D.C. 2006) (citing National Wilderness Inst. v. United States Army Corps of Eng'rs, 2005 WL 691775, at *7 (D.D.C. 2005); Fund for Animals v. Babbitt, 903 F. … See, e.g., id. at 1514 (military records corrections boards benefit from an “unusually deferential application of the ‘arbitrary or capricious’ standard”); Cargill v. Marsh, 902 F.2d 1006, 1008 (D.C.

Jones v. United States Parole Commission

860 F. Supp. 2d 16 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 16, 2012

The District of Columbia Code “provides no substantive limitations on the Board’s authority to grant parole which would create a liberty interest.” Price v. Barry, 53 F.3d 369, 370 (D.C. Cir. 1995). … And under the 1987 Regulations, “parole is never ‘required after the Board determines that the necessary prerequisites exist.’” Ellis v. District of Columbia, 84 F.3d 1413, 1420 (D.C.

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 .

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.

United States v. Exxon Corp.

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

In Service v. … In Vitarelli v.

Congregational Home of District of Columbia v. District of Columbia

202 F.2d 808 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 12, 1953

An amended petition was filed with the Board on March 27, 1952. The petitioner contended its property was exempt from such taxes under § 47-80la(h), D.C.Code (1940), 1 and under our decision in Catholic Home v. … Next, equalization of the valuations fixed by the Board of Assistant Assessors is accomplished by a Board of Equalization and Review, consisting of the Assessor, the Deputy Assessor and the six members of the Board of Assistant

McKinney v. Esper

District Court, District of Columbia · May 26, 2020

Military board decisions are entitled to even greater deference than other agency actions. Piersall v. Winter, 435 F.3d 319, 324 (D.C. Cir. 2006). … See Lujan v.

Robertson v. Jeff. Co. Atty's Office

District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 5, 2020

ROBERTSON, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) … DATE: November 4, 2020 /s/ KETANJI BROWN JACKSON United States District Judge

Bootery, Inc. v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

326 F. Supp. 794 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 8, 1971

In Goldberg v. … Unlike Dilday v.

Lipsman v. Secretary of the Army

335 F. Supp. 2d 48 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 7, 2004

See, e.g., Aiken v. … Walker v. Shannon, 848 F.Supp. 250, 254-55 (D.D.C.1994) (holding that it is not the function of the court to serve as a “super correction board”).