Case law

United States v. Olaitan

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 4, 2023

Id. at 13; see United States v. Brown, 597 F.3d 399, 404-05 (D.C. Cir. 2010); see also United States v. … Clarke, 24 F.3d at 265; United States v. Brown 597 F.3d at 405-06; United States v. Han, 962 F.3d 568, 573 (D.C. Cir. 2020).

Winner International Royalty Corp. v. Ching-Rong Wang

11 F. Supp. 2d 18 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 12, 1998

Wang v. Wu, Interference No. 102,654 (July 19, 1996). … See, e.g., Kahn v. General Motors Corp., 135 F.3d 1472, 1479 (Fed.Cir.1998). As the Supreme Court enunciated in United States v.

Washington Canoe Club v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission

889 A.2d 995 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2005

The Board of Zoning Adjustment (the “Board”) is authorized “to grant special exceptions, ... where, in the judgment of the Board, the special exceptions will be in harmony with the general purpose and intent of the Zoning … To support their position, the petitioners assert that Carliner v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 412 A.2d 52 (D.C.1980), dictates denial of the variance grant.

State of VT Dept. of Pub. Serv v. Nuclear Regulatory Commission

684 F.3d 149 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 26, 2012

In Sims v. … See Woodford v.

Wadelton v. Department of State

District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 30, 2018

Fenster v. Brown, 617 F.2d 740, 742 (D.C. Cir. 1979). A. … See Fenster v. Brown, 617 F.2d 740, 743 (D.C. Cir. 1979).

United House of Prayer for All People v. Therrien Waddell, Inc.

112 A.3d 330 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2015

v. … Brown v. Cara, 420 F.3d 148, 158 (2d Cir. 2005).

Star Lake Railroad v. Lujan

737 F. Supp. 103 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 27, 1990

BACKGROUND AND PROCEEDINGS BELOW Plaintiff Star Lake Railroad (Star Lake) is appealing a final decision by the Interior Department’s Interior Board of Indian Appeals (IBIA or Board) affirming the Navajo Area Board of Indian … The Board's decision does not discuss it. If indeed the claim was not presented to the agency in the first instance, it cannot be pressed on this Court. Washington Association for Television & Children v.

Yelverton v. Fox

997 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 1, 2013

The Board has the option to schedule oral arguments and can affirm, modify, remand, or dismiss the charges. The Board then submits its recommendation and the full record to the D.C. Court of Appeals. … Foman v. Davis, 371 U.S. 178, 182 (1962).

Miessner v. Hoschke

131 F.2d 865 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 2, 1942

The Board of Appeals affirmed the findings of the Examiner of Interferences that Hoschke had established conception in April, 1928, and that Miessner had established conception at least by October 6, 1932. Petrie v. … The Board of Appeals reversed the Examiner as to Count 1, and awarded priority to Hoschke upon both counts. The latter award was sustained by the District Court. Count 1 only is involved here. Akers v.

Employers Liability Assur. Corp. v. Hoage

91 F.2d 318 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 17, 1937

Hardesty, deceased employee of Walter Brown & Sons, Inc. … Crowell v. Benson, 285 U.S. 22, 46, 47 , 52 S.Ct. 285, 290, 291 , 76 L.Ed. 598 ; Voehl v. Indemnity Ins. Co. of North America, 288 U.S. 162, 166 , 53 S.Ct. 380, 381 , 77 L.Ed. 676 , 87 A.L.R. 245 ; Del Vecchio v.

In re Statham

815 A.2d 787 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2003

PER CURIAM: The Court of Appeals of Maryland disbarred respondent Michael V. Statham by consent on October 9, 2001. … Given the presumption in favor of identical reciprocal discipline 1 and our limited scope of review in uncontested discipline cases, 2 we adopt the Board’s recommendation. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that Michael V.

Arizona Public Service Co. v. United States

742 F.2d 644 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 7, 1984

V 1981.) (All references to Title 49 of the United States Code are to Supplement V 1981). The Administrative Law Judge in this case found requisite market dominance, see Arizona Public Service Co. v. … Universal Camera Corp. v. NLRB, 340 U.S. 474 (1951). 2 C.

Hill v. United States Parole Commission

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 2, 2017

Greenholtz v. Inmates of Neb. Penal & Corr. Complex, 442 U.S. 1, 7 (1979) (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 (1972)). … Supp. 2d 101, 109 (D.D.C. 2008); Cole v. Harrison, 271 F. Supp. 2d 51, 53 (D.D.C. 2002); see Brown-Bey v. Hyman, 649 A.2d 8, 9 (D.C. 1994).

W. Astor Kirk and Vivian M. Kirk v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue

425 F.2d 492 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 9, 1970

See also Deputy v. DuPont, 1940, 308 U.S. 488, 493 , 60 S.Ct. 363 , 84 L.Ed. 416 ; Interstate Transit Lines v. … Flast v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 , 88 S.Ct. 1942 , 20 L.Ed.2d 947 (1968); Protestants and Other Americans, etc. v. Watson, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 329 , 407 F.2d 1264 (1968).

Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, Afl-Cio, and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Afl-Cio v. National Labor Relations Board, Saks & Company, Intervenor. Saks & Company, a Corporation v. National Labor Relations Board, Retail, Wholesale, and Department Store Union, Afl-Cio, and International Ladies' Garment Workers Union, Afl-Cio, Intervenors

385 F.2d 301 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 14, 1967

NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS BOARD, Respondent, Saks & Company, Intervenor. SAKS & COMPANY, a corporation, Petitioner, v. … Compare Radio Officers' Union v. N.L.R.B., 347 U.S. 17, 51 , 74 S.Ct. 323 , 98 L.Ed. 455 (1954); Joy Silk Mills v.

Willene Daniels v. Charles Z. Wick, Director, U.S. Information Agency

812 F.2d 729 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 27, 1987

The court also relied on a previous case in which the Secretary of State had accepted the grievance board’s recommendation of tenure for a foreign service limited term appointee. Ehrman v. United States, R.O.P. … Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Resources Defense Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 , 81 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). 9 .

United States v. Yeh Hsin-Yung

97 F. Supp. 2d 24 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 26, 2000

United States v. … See Davis v.

Friends for All Children, Inc. v. Lockheed Aircraft Corp.

587 F. Supp. 180 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 27, 1984

Jaffee v. … Brown, 198 F.Supp. 78 (D.Hawaii 1961) (collateral source rule bars consideration of medical expense reimbursement by public agency of a Canadian province), aff'd sub nom. Brown v.

United States v. Mathews

76 F. Supp. 3d 56 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 19, 2014

COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ___________________________________ ) UNITED STATES OF AMERICA ) ) v. … Agent Brown asserts that pursuant to this Court’s Disposition Order, A.P. Mathews should have by this date made a total of 81 payments of $137.50, totaling $11,137.50; in fact, however, A.P.

Myvett v. Williams

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 3, 2009

Brown v. Armstrong, 949 F.2d 1007, 1011 (8th Cir. 1991). b. … Brown v. Gen. Servs. Admin., 425 U.S. 820, 829 (1976).