Case law

Inland Waterways Corporation v. Hardee

100 F.2d 678 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 31, 1938

Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corp. v. Harwood, 281 U.S. 519 , 50 S.Ct. 372 , 74 L.Ed. 1011 . … Sloan Shipyards Corp. v. United States Fleet Corporation, 258 U.S. 549 , 42 S.Ct. 386 , 66 L.Ed. 762 ; Skinner & Eddy v. McCarl, 275 U.S. 1 , 48 S.Ct. 12 , 72 L.Ed. 131 ; U. S. Shipping Board Merchant Fleet Corp. v.

Louisiana Federal Land Bank Ass'n, FCLA v. Farm Credit Administration

180 F. Supp. 2d 47 · District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 23, 2001

See FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120, 132 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000) (citing Rust v. Sullivan, 500 U.S. 173, 187 , 111 S.Ct. 1759 , 114 L.Ed.2d 233 (1991)). C. … See generally Chevron, 467 U.S. 837 , 104 S.Ct. 2778 (1984), FDA v. Brown and Williamson Tobacco Corp., 529 U.S. 120 , 120 S.Ct. 1291 , 146 L.Ed.2d 121 (2000), Federal Power Comm’n v.

Deep South Broadcasting Company v. Federal Communications Commission, Triple C Broadcasting Corporation, Intervenor

347 F.2d 459 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 1, 1965

The Board, by citing Triangle Publications, Inc. v. F. C. … Sayger v. F. C.

Edgerton v. Kingsland

168 F.2d 121 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Dec 4, 1947

Upon the expiration of the six montns’ period provided for in the statute the decision of the Board of Appeals against the appellant became res judicata, in the Patent Office. Lavin v. … Abbott v. Coe, 1939, 71 App.D.C. 195 , 109 F. 2d 449 ; Sharp v. Coe, 1941, 75 U.S.App. D.C. 118, 125 F.2d 185 ; Dyer v.

Noha v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority

District Court, District of Columbia · Aug 11, 2025

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). … See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).  The Court dismisses the complaint for the simple reasons that there are no factual allegations.

Scott v. Behavioral Research Associates, Inc.

43 A.3d 925 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 17, 2012

Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement Inc., 905 A.2d 177, 180 (D.C.2006). 7 . Id. at 181 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 . Morris v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 975 A.2d 176, 181 (D.C.2009) (quoting Brown v. Corr. … Dep’t of Mental Health v. Hayes, 6 A.3d 255, 259 (D.C.2010) (holding that employee's conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct); Brown v.

Thomas O. Barnes v. Harold I. Small, General

840 F.2d 972 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 8, 1988

. § 7116 , is not within Board’s jurisdiction); Bodinus v. … . § 7116 and, as such, is not within Board’s jurisdiction); see also Carter v. Kurzejeski, 706 F.2d 835 (8th Cir.1983).

Mayes v. United States

653 A.2d 856 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1995

In Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008 (D.C.1991), we stated that [wjhether reasonable suspicion or probable cause exists to justify a seizure is a mixed question of fact and law. … Brown, supra, 590 A.2d at 1014 (quoting Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213, 230 , 103 S.Ct. 2317, 2328 , 76 L.Ed.2d 527 (1983)).

Milton S. Kronheim & Co. v. District of Columbia

877 F. Supp. 21 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 24, 1995

Quality Brands, Inc. v. Barry, Civ. No. 88-1999. … Maine v. Taylor, 477 U.S. 131, 138-39 , 106 S.Ct. 2440, 2447 , 91 L.Ed.2d 110 (1986) (emphasis added) (internal citations omitted). See also Wyoming v.

Reuss v. Balles

73 F.R.D. 90 · District Court, District of Columbia · Dec 22, 1976

deputy chairman of the respective boards. … See e. g., Harrington v. Schlesinger, supra. Metcalf v.

Arch Coal, Inc. v. R. Alexander Acosta

888 F.3d 493 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 27, 2018

See, e.g., Elgin v. Dep’t of Treasury, 567 U.S. 1, 10 (2012); Thunder Basin Coal Co. v. Reich, 510 U.S. 200, 207–09 (1994); Jarkesy v. SEC, 803 F.3d 9, 16–17 (D.C. Cir. 2015). … James V. Hurson Assocs., Inc. v. Glickman, 229 F.3d 277, 280 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting JEM Broad. Co. v. FCC, 22 F.3d 320, 326 (D.C.

Velasquez v. United States

801 A.2d 72 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2002

Guzman v. United States, 769 A.2d 785, 790 (D.C.2001) (citing (Rocky) Brown v. United States, 683 A.2d 118, 124 (D.C.1996)). … The court may also limit cross-examination “ “where the prejudicial effect of the proffered evidence outweighs its probative value.’ ” Guzman, 769 A.2d at 790 (quoting (Rocky) Brown, 683 A.2d at 124 ) (quoting Elliott v.

McKeeman v. Bush

District Court, District of Columbia · Jun 3, 2026

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quotations omitted). … See Brown v. Califano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977).  The Court dismisses the complaint for the simple reason that there are no factual allegations supporting an actual legal claim. see Compl. at 4.

Council of Prison Locals v. Howlett

562 F. Supp. 849 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 28, 1983

Switchmen’s Union of North America v. National Mediation Board, 320 U.S. 297, 301 , 64 S.Ct. 95, 97 , 88 L.Ed. 61 (1943). … That the Board may have made an error of fact or law is insufficient; the Board must have acted without statutory authority. Physicians Nat. House Staff Ass’n v.

Chastleton Coop. Ass'n, Inc. v. Kawamoto Notes, LLC

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2024

.”); Grayson v. … Brown, individually.”

International Cellucotton Products Co. v. Coe

2 D.C. 45 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1935

The Board of Appeals also denied Thompson’s petition for rehearing or modification. 6. … of the Examiner of Interferences, and the decision of the Board of Appeals in Thompson v.

United States v. Philip Morris USA, Inc.

907 F. Supp. 2d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Nov 27, 2012

Brown v. Entm’t Merchs. Ass’n, 131 S. Ct. 2729, 2733 (2011) (quoting Ashcroft v. A.C.L.U., 535 U.S. 564, 573 (2002)). … See Brown, 131 S. Ct. at 2733 (discussing categories of unprotected speech).

Robert C. Watson, Commissioner of Patents v. Chester H. Bruns

239 F.2d 948 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Nov 29, 1956

American Cable Co. v. John A. Roe-bling’s Sons Co., 1933, 62 App.D.C. 168, 170 , 65 E.20 801, 803. 13 . Gandy v. Marble, 1887, 122 U.S. 432, 439 , 7 S.Ct. 1290, 1292 , 30 L.Ed. 1223 . 14 . Hoover Co. v. … Butterworth v. Hoe, 1884, 112 U.S. 50, 61-62, 68 , 5 S.Ct. 25 , 28 L.Ed. 656 . 15 . Rule 105. 16 . Rule 106. 17 . Rulo 197. 18 . 35 U.S.C. § 145 (1952); ef. Hoover Co. v. Ooe, supra note 14. 19 . Hoover Co. v.

NAWA USA, INC. v. Bottler

533 F. Supp. 2d 52 · District Court, District of Columbia · Feb 4, 2008

Kanzlsperger at a board meeting on June 21, 2003, when Defendants had been removed as board members on May 23, 2003. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction; NAWA opposes. II. … NAWA makes no allegation that the February 2002 board meeting was related to the alleged improper sale of NAWA shares to Mr. Kanzlsperger at the June 21, 2003 board meeting.

Olson v. Rice

District Court, District of Columbia · Jul 2, 2009

Schoenbohm v. FCC, 204 F.3d 243, 250 (D.C. Cir. 2000) (quoting ICC v. Bhd. of Locomotive Eng’rs, 482 U.S. 270, 283 (1987)). … It was the Board’s job, and not the 4 Court’s, to weigh the evidence. Id. at 14 (“The FSGB is responsible for making findings of fact.”) (citing Toy v.