findings hearing in District of Columbia

2021Cf. Brown-Carson v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 159 A.3d 303 , 312 (D.C. 2017) (finding error in the CRB’s unexplained, and therefore arbitrary and capricious, departure from its previously articulated approach).

2005Smalls was recalled and briefly testified the same afternoon after Sadler and two other pro forma government witnesses had testified. [17] If the marshal in executing the order overstated its duration in speaking to the affected family members and associates, appellant could fairly be expected to monitor and learn of the marshal's overstatement. [18] "Of course," the Second Circuit was careful to add, "if some further alternative is suggested by the defendant or the prosecution, the trial judge should give it consideration." Ayala, 131 F.3d at 72 . [19] "[T]he Waller Court prescribed no partic

2005"Of course/' the Second Circuit was careful to add, "if some further alternative is suggested by the defendant or the prosecution,, the trial judge should give it consideration.” Ayala, 131 F.3d at 72 . . "[T]he Waller Court prescribed no particular format to which a trial judge must adhere to satisfy the findings requirement, and we read nothing in Waller that would require a reviewing court to evaluate the trial judge’s closure order solely on the basis of the explicit factual findings and, thereby, ignore facts of record which fully support the decision and belie a claim that [the defendant

2005Smalls was recalled and briefly testified the same afternoon after Sadler and two other pro forma government witnesses had testified. [17] If the marshal in executing the order overstated its duration in speaking to the affected family members and associates, appellant could fairly be expected to monitor and learn of the marshal's overstatement. [18] "Of course," the Second Circuit was careful to add, "if some further alternative is suggested by the defendant or the prosecution, the trial judge should give it consideration." Ayala, 131 F.3d at 72 . [19] "[T]he Waller Court prescribed no partic

1993This court invalidated the guideline adopted by the Board of Judges of the Superior Court in Fitzgerald v. Fitzgerald, 566 A.2d 719 (D.C.1989).

1989Ms. Harris relies principally on our decision in Dell v. Dep’t of Employment Services, 499 A.2d 102 (D.C.1985).

1986Thus, we must “examine the administrative record to determine whether there has been procedural error, whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the [Board’s] findings, or whether the [Board’s] action was in some manner arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Stokes v. District of Columbia, supra, 502 A.2d at 1010 ; Barry v. Wilson, 448 A.2d 244, 246 (D.C.1982); Kegley v. District of Columbia, supra, 440 A.2d at 1019 . 5 *506 Substantial evidence supports the findings of the hearing examiner and the Board.

1986Thus, we must “examine the administrative record to determine whether there has been procedural error, whether there is substantial evidence in the record to support the [Board’s] findings, or whether the [Board’s] action was in some manner arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.” Stokes v. District of Columbia, supra, 502 A.2d at 1010 ; Barry v. Wilson, 448 A.2d 244, 246 (D.C.1982); Kegley v. District of Columbia, supra, 440 A.2d at 1019 . 5 *506 Substantial evidence supports the findings of the hearing examiner and the Board.

1969Gerstenfeld v. Jett, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 119 , 374 F.2d 33 (1967), relied on by the Board to except it from the findings requirement, is distinguishable from Andree & Seedman, supra, because, unlike this case, a procedure was there available to seek an exception to the administrative classification and that was deemed by that court to protect the right to a hearing and, inferably, the right of judicial review. 25 .

1969Gerstenfeld v. Jett, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 119 , 374 F.2d 33 (1967), relied on by the Board to except it from the findings requirement, is distinguishable from Andree & Seedman, supra, because, unlike this case, a procedure was there available to seek an exception to the administrative classification and that was deemed by that court to protect the right to a hearing and, inferably, the right of judicial review. 25 .