Case law

Strong-Fisher v. LaHood

611 F. Supp. 2d 49 · District Court, District of Columbia · Apr 30, 2009

In Brown v. … .”); Prince v. Rice, 453 F.Supp.2d 14, 25 (D.D.C.2006) (noting that the court of appeals has interpreted the Supreme Court’s ruling in Brown v.

Idrogo v. Foxx

990 F. Supp. 2d 5 · District Court, District of Columbia · Oct 25, 2013

S(a); see Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1950 (2009); Ciralsky v. CIA, 355 F.3d 661, 668-71 (D.C. Cir. 2004). … Brown v. Calzfano, 75 F.R.D. 497, 498 (D.D.C. 1977). Plaintiff is a Texas resident. He purports to sue U.S. Transportation Secretary Anthony Foxx, certain members of Congress, and other individuals. See Compl.

Juffer v. Caldera

138 F. Supp. 2d 22 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 19, 2001

consideration by a special selection board; or (2) to grant any relief on such a claim unless the officer or former officer has been selected for promotion by a special selection board convened under this section to consider … Coit Independence Joint Venture v. FSLIC, 489 U.S. 561, 587 , 109 S.Ct. 1361 , 103 L.Ed.2d 602 (1989). B.

International Brotherhood of Teamsters, Airline Division v. Atlas Air, Inc.

District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 28, 2020

B-D, and the parties’ submissions to the Board, id., Exhs. E-J. See, e.g., Hinton v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 624 F. Supp. 2d 45, 47 (D.D.C. 2009) (considering a copy of a contract in a contract dispute); Marshall v. … Sept. 21, 2001) (taking judicial notice of the RLA Board’s hearing transcript as a public record); cf. Vanover v. Hantman, 77 F.

Coulibaly v. Pompeo

318 F. Supp. 3d 176 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 17, 2018

Brown v. GSA , 425 U.S. 820 , 835, 96 S.Ct. 1961 , 48 L.Ed.2d 402 (1976). … Hamilton v. Dist. of Columbia , 720 F.Supp.2d 102 , 110 (D.D.C. 2010) (citing Brown , 425 U.S. at 828 -29 , 96 S.Ct. 1961 ).

Marin Tv Services Partners, Ltd. v. Federal Communications Commission, North Bay Television, Inc., Intervenor

936 F.2d 1304 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 25, 1991

In any event, we must read the Commission’s final decision to mean what it says, see SEC v. … See Greater Boston Television Corp. v. FCC.

Donald K. Belsinger v. District of Columbia

436 F.2d 214 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jun 29, 1970

The point was conceded by the Electrical Board at oral argument. . This ease is thus to be distinguished from Am-Chi Restaurant, Inc. v. … In Mantzoros v.

District of Columbia v. Jones

38 App. D.C. 560 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Apr 22, 1912

Knox County v. Ninth Nat. Bank, 147 U. S. 91 — 97, 37 L. ed. 93—95, 13 Sup. Ct. Rep. 267; Nofire v. United States, 164 U. S. 657 -660, 41 L. ed. 588-590, 17 Sup. Ct. Rep. 212; Guthrie Nat. Bamk v. Guthrie, 173 U. … Pillsbury v. Brown, 82 Me. 453 , 9 L.R.A. 94 , 19 Atl. 858 ; Thomas v. Ford, 63 Md. 346 , 52 Am. Rep. 513 ; Blossom v. Cannon, 14 Mass. 177 ; Langdon v. State, 23 Neb. 509 , 37 N. W. 79 . In Nealy v.

Commonwealth Commercial State Bank v. Lucas

41 F.2d 111 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · May 5, 1930

Appeal from a decision by the Board of Tax Appeals involving income taxes for the *112 calendar year 1921 in the amount of $3,358.08. … In January, 1928, the Board of Tax Appeals, in the case of First National Bank of St. Paul v. Commissioner, 10 B. T.

Lamb v. Patterson

154 F.2d 319 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Mar 25, 1946

Davis v. Woodring, 72 App.D.C. 83 , 111 F.2d 523 . Arizona Grocery Co., v. Atchison T. & S. F. R. Co., 284 U.S. 370, 386 , 52 S.Ct. 183 , 76 L.Ed. 348 . Miguel v. … In Galliher v.

United States v. Balderas

District Court, District of Columbia · May 15, 2024

See id. § 3142(e)(3)(A); ECF No. 174 (operative indictment); United States v. Brown, 538 F. Supp. 3d 154, 165 (D.D.C. 2021) (RCL). … See Brown, 538 F. Supp. 3d at 168–69. Given the evidence to date, this factor weighs in favor of detention. See United States v. Brockhoff, 590 F.

Loumiet v. Office of the Comptroller of Currency

650 F.3d 796 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Jul 12, 2011

Denson, Attorney.  2 Before: HENDERSON, BROWN and KAVANAUGH, Circuit Judges. Opinion for the Court filed by Circuit Judge BROWN. … See Taucher v. Brown-Hruska, 396 F.3d 1168, 1173 (D.C. Cir. 2005) (requiring “a reasonable basis both in law and fact” to satisfy the EAJA’s substantial justification  11 standard).

United States ex rel. Barko v. Halliburton Co.

37 F. Supp. 3d 1 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 6, 2014

GWIN, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE In this qui tarn case, Plaintiff-Relator Harry Barko moves for an order compelling Defendants Kellogg Brown & Root Services, Inc., KBR Technical Services, Inc., Kellogg, Brown & Root Engineering … Upjohn Co. v. United States, 449 U.S. 383, 389 , 101 S.Ct. 677 , 66 L.Ed.2d 584 (1981). . Id. . United States v. ISS Marine Servs., Inc., 905 F.Supp.2d 121, 127 (D.D.C.2012) (quoting United States v.

Brian A. Brown v. Lorton Maximum Security Facility

948 F.2d 781 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Sep 16, 1991

BROWN, Appellant, v. LORTON MAXIMUM SECURITY FACILITY, et al. No. 89-5403. United States Court of Appeals, District of Columbia Circuit. Sept. 16, 1991. Before RUTH BADER GINSBURG, D.H. … See Brookens v. White, 795 F.2d 178, 179 (D.C.Cir.1986). 4 The Clerk is directed to withhold issuance of the mandate herein until seven days after disposition of any timely petition for rehearing. See D.C.Cir.Rule 15.

American Foreign Service Association v. James A. Baker, Iii, Secretary of State

895 F.2d 1460 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Feb 16, 1990

See Karahalios v. … See National Federation of Federal Employees v. Weinberger, 818 F.2d 935 , 941 n. 7 (D.C.Cir.1987); Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of Am. v. Weinberger, 795 F.2d 90, 105-07 (D.C.Cir.1986).

Walters v. Secretary of Defense

533 F. Supp. 1068 · District Court, District of Columbia · Mar 2, 1982

In United States v. … In United States v.

Ocania Chalk v. Secretary of Labor, U. S. Department of Labor

565 F.2d 764 · Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · Oct 27, 1977

MERITS In Hackley v. … Board was in this category.

Foster v. Mabus

895 F. Supp. 2d 135 · District Court, District of Columbia · Sep 29, 2012

On July 21, 2011, the plaintiff sent a letter to Department of the Navy in an attempt to appeal the NJROTC Instructor Certification Board’s decision, raising three grounds to set aside the Board’s decision: (1) the Board … (citing Baker v.

IN RE: Z.B.

131 A.3d 351 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2016

United States v. … Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1020 (D.C. 1991). “[W]e will not disturb the trial judge’s findings of fact unless they lack evidentiary support in the record . . . .

Fox v. Johnson & Wimsatt

31 F. Supp. 64 · District Court, District of Columbia · Jan 24, 1940

The condemnation proceeding was discontinued and abandoned by the District of Columbia December 10th, 1931, and their right to so discontinue and abandon was upheld by the Court of Appeals in Johnson & Wimsatt, Inc. v. … That this report was adopted by the board of directors.