11 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1972–2010 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc.green2 sentences2010It also is important to appreciate that “[although the doctrines often overlap, the doctrine of primary jurisdiction should not be confused,” as it was by the parties, and especially MPD, in this case, “with the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies.” Drayton v. Poretsky Mgmt., Inc., 462 A.2d 1115, 1118 (D.C.1983) (citing United States v. Western Pac. 1994In Drayton v. Poretsky Management, Inc., 462 A.2d 1115, 1118 (D.C.1983), we observed that the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies should not be confused with the related doctrine of primary jurisdiction. | 2 | 2 |
Dano Resource Recovery, Inc. v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence2006Admin., supra, 633 A.2d at 20-21 (holding that disappointed bidder claiming irreparable harm in order to avoid the exhaustion requirement must show entitlement to such extraordinary relief); Dano Resource, supra, 566 A.2d at 487 (affirming the trial court’s ruling that a contractor was subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement because it had failed to show that the appeals procedure was inadequate or otherwise futile). | 1 | 1 |
National Treasury Employees Union v. Kinggreen1 sentence2006D.C. 153, 156, 961 F.2d 240, 243 (1992)) (distinguishing on the basis of its flexibility the exhaustion of administrative remedies doctrine from jurisdiction and standing). | 1 | 1 |
Davis & Associates v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2006It is Mr. Lattisaw’s failure to file a grievance based on Claim No. 2, and nothing more, that requires us to conclude that the trial court committed no error in dismissing his civil complaint. “[T]he failure to pursue the initial step in the administrative process does not relieve a party of the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement.” Davis & Associates v. Williams, 892 A.2d 1144, 1150 (D.C.2006). | 1 | 1 |
District of Columbia v. Group Insurance Administrationgreen1 sentence2006Admin., supra, 633 A.2d at 20-21 (holding that disappointed bidder claiming irreparable harm in order to avoid the exhaustion requirement must show entitlement to such extraordinary relief); Dano Resource, supra, 566 A.2d at 487 (affirming the trial court’s ruling that a contractor was subject to the exhaustion of administrative remedies requirement because it had failed to show that the appeals procedure was inadequate or otherwise futile). | 1 | 1 |
Seefeldt v. Board of Trustees of Universitygreen1 sentence2002Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Fisher’s principal argument on appeal is that pursuing a claim with the OEA would have been futile because its executive director believed that the agency lacked jurisdiction. 2 *964 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies provides “that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” Seefeldt v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 487 F.Supp. 230, 233 (D.D.C.1979) (quoting Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 | 1 | 1 |
Grillo v. National Bank of Washingtongreen1 sentence1991Grillo v. National Bank of Washington, Inc., 540 A.2d 743, 750 (D.C.1988), did not involve the issue of finality of agency action; the exception noted to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in Capitol Hill Restoration Soc'y, supra, 287 A.2d at 106 , was limited to circumstances in which an agency violates constitutional or statutory rights, and no such claim is made by Warner. 4 . | 1 | 1 |
Red River Broadcasting Co. v. Federal Communications Commissiongreen2 sentences1980Compare Red River Broadcasting Co. Inc. v. FCC, 69 App.D.C. 1, 5-7 , 98 F.2d 282, 286-88 , cert. denied, 305 U.S. 625 , 59 S.Ct. 86 , 83 L.Ed. 400 (1938). 1980Compare Red River Broadcasting Co. Inc. v. FCC, 69 App.D.C. 1, 5-7 , 98 F.2d 282, 286-88 , cert. denied, 305 U.S. 625 , 59 S.Ct. 86 , 83 L.Ed. 400 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
Kansas City Southern Ry. Co. v. Interstate Commerce Commissiongreen2 sentences1980Compare Red River Broadcasting Co. Inc. v. FCC, 69 App.D.C. 1, 5-7 , 98 F.2d 282, 286-88 , cert. denied, 305 U.S. 625 , 59 S.Ct. 86 , 83 L.Ed. 400 (1938). 1980Compare Red River Broadcasting Co. Inc. v. FCC, 69 App.D.C. 1, 5-7 , 98 F.2d 282, 286-88 , cert. denied, 305 U.S. 625 , 59 S.Ct. 86 , 83 L.Ed. 400 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
West Tennessee Power & Light Co. v. Jacksongreen1 sentence1980Compare Red River Broadcasting Co. Inc. v. FCC, 69 App.D.C. 1, 5-7 , 98 F.2d 282, 286-88 , cert. denied, 305 U.S. 625 , 59 S.Ct. 86 , 83 L.Ed. 400 (1938). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Western Pacific Railroad
green
2 sentences2006Co., 352 U.S. 59, 63 , 77 S.Ct. 161 , 1 L.Ed.2d 126 (1956)). 2006Co., 352 U.S. 59, 63 , 77 S.Ct. 161 , 1 L.Ed.2d 126 (1956)). | 2 | 1983–2006 |
McKart v. United States
green
2 sentences1991The exhaustion of District administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to § 1983 in the local courts of the District. 8 A The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, well established in administrative law jurisprudence, provides “that no *216 one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969) (citation omitted). 1991The exhaustion of District administrative remedies is not a prerequisite to bringing an action pursuant to § 1983 in the local courts of the District. 8 A The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, well established in administrative law jurisprudence, provides “that no *216 one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” McKart v. United States, 395 U.S. 185, 193 , 89 S.Ct. 1657, 1662 , 23 L.Ed.2d 194 (1969) (citation omitted). | 2 | 1972–1991 |
Washington Association For Television And Children v. Federal Communications Commission
green
2 sentences2009D.C. 363, 367-68, 712 F.2d 677 , 681-82 (1983) (holding that 47 U.S.C. § 405 "co-dicies] the judicially-created doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which permits courts some discretion to waive exhaustion”). . 2009D.C. 363, 367-68, 712 F.2d 677 , 681-82 (1983) (holding that 47 U.S.C. § 405 "codif[ies] the judicially-created doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies, which permits courts some discretion to waive exhaustion"). [55] D.C. | 1 | 2009–2009 |
Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp.
green
2 sentences2002Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Fisher’s principal argument on appeal is that pursuing a claim with the OEA would have been futile because its executive director believed that the agency lacked jurisdiction. 2 *964 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies provides “that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” Seefeldt v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 487 F.Supp. 230, 233 (D.D.C.1979) (quoting Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 2002Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies Fisher’s principal argument on appeal is that pursuing a claim with the OEA would have been futile because its executive director believed that the agency lacked jurisdiction. 2 *964 The doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies provides “that no one is entitled to judicial relief for a supposed or threatened injury until the prescribed administrative remedy has been exhausted.” Seefeldt v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 487 F.Supp. 230, 233 (D.D.C.1979) (quoting Myers v. Bethlehem Shipbuilding Corp., 303 U.S. 41, 50-51 | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Capitol Hill Restoration Society v. Zoning Commission
green
1 sentence1991Grillo v. National Bank of Washington, Inc., 540 A.2d 743, 750 (D.C.1988), did not involve the issue of finality of agency action; the exception noted to the doctrine of exhaustion of administrative remedies in Capitol Hill Restoration Soc'y, supra, 287 A.2d at 106 , was limited to circumstances in which an agency violates constitutional or statutory rights, and no such claim is made by Warner. 4 . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.