Legal Opinion
District of Columbia v. Stokes
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
Decided November 21, 2001No. 00-CV-1401PublishedCited by 5 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
SCHWELB, Associate Judge:
This appeal arises from appellee Ronald L. Stokes’ claim that the abolition of his statutorily created position as Chief of the District’s Office of Taxicabs constituted an unlawful reduction in force (RIF). The Office of Employee Appeals (OEA) held that the separation of Stokes from government service was unlawful, but granted only limited relief. On March 22, 2000, in what we shall call Order No. 1, the trial judge held that the remedy authorized by the OEA was inadequate, and she remanded the case to the OEA with instructions that Stokes be reinstated and receive…
2Cases cited4 opinions
- Hazel-Atlas Glass Co. v. Hartford-Empire Co.Supreme Court of the United States · 1944
- Zipfel v. Halliburton Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1988
- Dilley v. AlexanderCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1980
- Martin v. District of Columbia CourtsDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2000
3Cited by5 opinions
- Ex Parte JamesSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002
- Dyson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2004
- A.L. Eastmond & Sons, Inc. v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
- Alabama Coalition for Equity, Inc. v. JamesSupreme Court of Alabama · 2002
- Johnson v. Precision Systems, Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2021