Case law

Congress of Railway Unions v. Hodgson

326 F. Supp. 68 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 1971

International Association of Machinists v. National Mediation Board, 138 U.S.App.D.C. 96 , 425 F.2d 527 (1970). … V.

In re Johnson

143 A.3d 103 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 2016

Johnson brought this second petition for reinstatement before the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) after multiple failed attempts to file a compliant affidavit with the Board pursuant to D.C. Bar R. … See Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Md. v. Johnson, 363 Md. 598 , 770 A.2d 130, 150 (2001). .

McCord v. Cephas

532 F.2d 1377 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 24, 1976

We reverse the Benefits Review Board because its decision is based on an approach inconsistent with the Supreme Court’s reading of the scope of § 22 in O'Keeffe v. … The Benefits Review Board took the view that though § 22 authorizes modification, it does not authorize nullification of existing awards. They also, citing Crowell v.

Currier, Kenneth v. Pstmstr Gen

304 F.3d 87 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 4, 2002

Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 322-23 (1986). … Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1999). This calls for a comparative judgment: what was the situation immediately before the alleged adverse personnel action, and what was the situation after it?

Cox v. Headley

265 F. 981 · District Court, District of Columbia · May 3, 1920

Tlje Board further found that Cox had not shown that his combination was susceptible of being substituted in machines of the prior art. … Podlesak v. McInnerney, 26 App. D. C. 399; Sobey v. Holsclaw, 28 App. D. C. 65; Miel v. Young, 29 App. D. C. 481; Kirby v. Clements, 44 App. D. C. 12; Seymour v. Molyneux (present term) 271 O. G. 688 .

Cohen v. Warner Chilcott Public Ltd.

522 F. Supp. 2d 105 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 15, 2007

See Final Mem. at 5-6, Ex. 1 (10/2/07 Brown Decl.) (hereinafter “Brown Deck”). … Brown Decl. ¶ 15.

In re John T. Szymkowicz

195 A.3d 785 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2018

In McDonnell Douglas Corp. v. … Chang v. Inst. for Public–Private P’ships, Inc., 846 A.2d 318, 329 (D.C. 2004) (quoting Blount v. Nat’l Ctr. for Tobacco–Free Kids, 775 A.2d 1110, 1115 (D.C. 2001)).

Velikonja, Maria v. Gonzales, Alberto

466 F.3d 122 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 17, 2006

Dover, Attorney.  2 Before: TATEL and BROWN, Circuit Judges, and EDWARDS, Senior Circuit Judge. Opinion for the court filed Per Curiam. … See Brown v. Brody, 199 F.3d 446, 457 (D.C. Cir. 1999).

American Federation of Government Employees, Afl-Cio v. Federal Labor Relations Authority

785 F.2d 333 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 11, 1986

Phelps Dodge Corp. v. Labor Board, 313 U.S. 177, 194 , 61 S.Ct. 845, 852 , 85 L.Ed. 1271 (1941). … "In fashioning remedies to undo the effects of violations of the Act, the Board must draw on enlightenment gained from experience.” Labor Board v.

Edgar W. Graham v. Alfred C. Richmond, Commandant of the United States Coast Guard

272 F.2d 517 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 5, 1959

Greene v. … Service v.

Northampton Media Associates v. Federal Communications Commission, Cutter Broadcasting, Inc., Intervenor

941 F.2d 1214 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 24, 1991

In tracking agency policy, we have relied on Board decisions as well as those of the Commission. See Ventura Broadcasting Co. v. … FCC, 765 F.2d 184 , 191-93 (D.C.Cir.1985) (remanding where Commission failed to explain its departure from Review Board precedent); West Michigan Broadcasting Co. v.

International Brotherhood of Electrical Workers v. Washington Terminal Company

473 F.2d 1156 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 26, 1973

Ry. v. … Co. v. IBEW, Civ. No. S-1699 (E.D.Cal., July 9, 1970). 24 . The term “Public Law Board” is not used in the statute but refers generally to those special boards of adjustment authorized by 45 U.S.C. § 153 , Second.

Tuohy v. Hanlon

18 App. D.C. 225 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 21, 1901

Compton v. Barnes, 4 Gill, 55 ; Townshend v. Brooke, 9 Gill, 90 ; Glass v. Ramsay, 9 Gill, 456 ; Dorsey v. *229 Dorsey, 10 Md. 471 ; Brown v. Johns, 62 Md. 833 . … So, also, in the case of Brown v.

Hood v. United States

661 A.2d 1081 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1995

Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1020 (D.C.1991). … See Brown, supra, 590 A.2d at 1014 .

Wilson v. Brame

228 A.2d 326 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1967

Holmes v. Stahl, D.C.App., 190 A.2d 102 (1963); Reading v. Faucon, D.C.Mun.App., 134 A. 2d 376 (1957); Mayers v. Greenwald, D.C.Mun.App., 129 A.2d 854 (1957) ; Dohoney v. Imperial Ins. … . *328 2d 412 (1952); Shu v. Basinger, D.C.Mun. App., 57 A.2d 295 (1948); Brown v. Clancy, D.C.Mun.App., 43 A.2d 296 (1945); see Akers v. Tomlinson, D.C.App., 222 A.2d 644 (1966); Carter v.

BUILDING AND CONST. TRADES DEPT., AFL-CIO v. Reich

815 F. Supp. 484 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 23, 1993

Relying upon United States v. … Yellow Bus Lines, Inc. v.

Ackerman v. United States

324 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 12, 2004

Gonzalez v. U.S. Dep’t of State, 135 F.Supp.2d 193, 195 (D.D.C.2001). … General Carbon Co. v. OSHRC, 860 F.2d 479 , 483 (D.C.Cir.1988).

Jesse Douglas v. Robert E. Hampton, Chairman of Civil Service Commission

512 F.2d 976 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 27, 1975

Chance v. Board of Examiners, supra note 49 , 458 F.2d at 1174 ; Bridgeport Guardians, Inc. v. Civil Serv. Comm’n, supra note 28, 482 F.2d at 1337 ; Walston v. … Brown, III, Chairman, EEOC, to Robert E. Hampton, Chairman, Civil Service Commission, undated. Joint App. at 421.

Urban Investments, Inc. v. Branham

464 A.2d 93 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1983

v. … For example, *97 in Brown v.

Mitchell v. Yellen

District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 24, 2018

must identify some “legitimate, non-discriminatory or non-retaliatory reason” for the employment action, see id. at 1092, which the plaintiff can rebut by showing that the employer’s stated reason is “merely pretext,” Brown … v.