G Cite
cited 4× by 4 distinct cases, 2010–2018 ·
(1) the agency made findings of fact on each contested material factual issue, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) the agency's conclusions of law flow rationally from its findings of fact.
at p. 915
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
cited 3× by 3 distinct cases, 2009–2019 ·
…we affirm an administrative agency decision when (1) the agency made findings of fact on each contested material factual issue, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) the agency's conclusions of law flow rationally from its findings of fact.
at p. 915
⚠ not in text
Topic ↗
Treatment trajectory · 2009 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
2009
2017
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 24 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
American Federation of Gov't Employees National Office v. D.C. Public Relations Board
(2×)
Code § 2-510 (a)(3)(A), (C) (2016 Repl.); Georgetown Univ., 971 A.2d at 915; Thomas, 409 A.2d at 169 .
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gaines v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs.
Georgetown Univ. , 971 A.2d at 916 (internal quotation marks omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Gaines v. DC DOES and WAMATA
Georgetown Univ., 971 A.2d at 916 (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Frances Johnson v. DC DOES
Hosp. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 916 A.2d 149, 151 (D.C. 2007). 10 Georgetown Univ., 971 A.2d at 915. 11 of the relevant law or a faulty application of the law[,]” or that does not allow us to “confidently ascertain either the precise legal principles on which the agency relied or its underlying factual determinations.”11 Moreover, we may set aside a determination that we find to have been rendered “[w]ithout observance of procedure required by law. . . .”12 Ms. Johnson presents two basic challenges to the CRB‟s decision, which we shall address in turn.
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
JEFFREY BOWSER,Petitioner v. CRB-4-14 DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, and CLARK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Intervenors
More generally, this court will affirm a ruling of the CRB unless the ruling is “arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Vernice Bowles v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
“We affirm an administrative agency decision when (1) the agency made findings of fact on each contested material factual issue, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) the agency’s conclusions of law flow rationally from its findings of fact.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Hughey Payne v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services and Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
This court reviews decisions of the Department of Employment Services (“DOES”) “to determine whether they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Nathalia L. Brown v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services and Potomac Electrical Power Company
Coumaris v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Bd., 660 A.2d 896, 902 (D.C.1995) (quoting Dietrich v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 293 A.2d 470, 472 (D.C.1972)); see also Allentown Mack Sales & Serv., Inc. v. NLRB, 522 U.S. 359, 375 , 118 S.Ct. 818 , 139 L.Ed.2d 797 (1998) ("unreasoned decisionmaking ... prevents] ... effective review); Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009) (”[T]his court cannot affirm an administrative decision if we cannot confidently ascertain either the precise legal principles on which…
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
D.C. Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, Inc. v. District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities, & Banking
Area Transit Auth. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 992 A.2d 1276, 1280 (D.C.2010) (quoting Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Reyes v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
(2×)
We will affirm the CRB’s decision if “(1) the agency made findings of fact on each contested material factual issue, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) the agency’s conclusions of law flow rationally from its findings of fact.” District of Columbia Dep’t of Mental Health v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 15 A.3d 692, 696 (D.C.2011) (quoting Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009)) (internal quotation mark omitted).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Fluellyn v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
Area Transit Auth., 992 A.2d at 1280 (quoting Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009)).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Muhammad v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
(3×)
also: Cited "see, e.g."
Standard of Review “This court reviews [Department of Employment Services] decisions to determine whether they are arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Bentt v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 979 A.2d 1226, 1231 (D.C.2009) (quoting Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009)).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
District of Columbia Department of Mental Health v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
A. Our Standard of Review We review decisions of the CRB to determine whether they are “[arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009); see also McNeal v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 917 A.2d 652, 656 (D.C.2007) (same) (citing D.C.Code § 2-510(a)(3) (2001)).
cited
Cited as authority (rule)
Copeland v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009) (internal quotation marks omitted). 3 .
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Lincoln Hockey, LLC v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
We will uphold the agency’s decision provided that “(1) the agency made findings of fact on each contested material factual issue, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) the agency’s conclusions of law flow rationally from its findings of fact.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Beynum v. Arch Training Center
We review the ALJ’s decision to confirm that “(1) the [ALJ] made findings of fact on each contested material factual issue, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) the [ALJ’s] conclusions of law flow rationally from its findings of fact.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009); see also D.C.Code § 2-510(a)(3)(A) (2001).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
We will not affirm an administrative determination that “reflects a misconception of the relevant law or a faulty application of the law.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Children's National Medical Center v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
We will affirm the *406 decision if “(1) the agency made findings of fact on each contested material factual issue, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) the agency’s conclusions of law flow rationally from its findings of fact.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009).
discussed
Cited as authority (rule)
Golding-Alleyne v. Department of Employment Services
“We affirm an administrative agency decision when (1) the agency made findings of fact on each contested material factual issue, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) the agency’s conclusions of law flow rationally from its findings of fact.” Georgetown University v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009).
examined
Cited as authority (rule)
Bentt v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
(6×)
also: Cited "see"
We do not affirm an administrative determination which reflects a misconception of the relevant law or a faulty application of the law.” Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 971 A.2d 909, 915 (D.C.2009) (“Ford ”) (internal citations, quotation marks, and alterations omitted). “[Although we accord weight to the agency’s construction of the statutes which it administers, the ultimate responsibility for deciding questions of law is assigned to this court.” Kuri Bros., Inc. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 891 A.2d 241, 245 (D.C.2006) …
cited
Cited "see"
United Parcel Serv. v. D.C. Dep't of Emp. Serv.
See Georgetown Univ., 971 A.2d at 916 (citing what is now 1 Larson’s §§ 3.05, 8.03).
cited
Cited "see"
Hill v. D.C. Department of Employment Services
See Bender v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 562 A.2d 1205, 1207 (D.C. 1989). 9 Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909 , 915 (D.C. 2009)).
cited
Cited "see"
Hill v. D.C. Department of Employment Services
See Bender v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 562 A.2d 1205, 1207 (D.C. 1989). 9 Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909 , 915 (D.C. 2009)).
cited
Cited "see, e.g."
Lee v. D.C. Department of Employment Services
Code § 32-1521 (1) (2019 Repl.); see also Georgetown Univ. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 971 A.2d 909 , 916 (D.C. 2009) (citations omitted).
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
In Re Navron PONDS, Respondent. Bar Registration No. 306589
02-BG-659.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
May 14, 2009.
Washington, Glickman, Steadman.
Published
ORDER
PER CURIAM.On consideration of the August 22, 2002, order of the U.S. District Court for the District of Maryland disbarring respondent from practice before that court, this court’s September 3, 2002, order suspending respondent from practice in this jurisdiction pending final disposition by this court, the Report and Recommendation and Supplemental Report and Recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility, to which no exceptions have been taken, respondent’s motion and supplemental motion for nunc pro tunc treatment, Bar Counsel’s oppositions thereto, and respondent’s Amended Affidavit and Second Amended Affidavit in Compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g), it is
ORDERED that Navron Ponds is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia. See In re Libby, 945 A.2d 1169 (D.C.2008); In re Goffe, 641 A.2d 458 (D.C.1994). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that respondent’s motion and supplemental motion for nunc pro tunc treatment are denied and that for the purposes of reinstatement, respondent’s disbarment will run from February 24, 2009, the date that he filed his Second Amended Affidavit thereby bringing him into full compliance with the requirements of D.C.Bar. R. XI, § 14(g). It is
FURTHER ORDERED that the matter based on respondent’s misdemeanor violations of 26 U.S.C. § 7203 is dismissed as moot.