 |
|
 |
|
|
Access State and Federal Case Law, plus U.S. Supreme Court cases — for free!
Click on any of the case links below to view the full text of that case — for free — through lexisONE®, a legal research and news service from LexisNexis®. Login is required — registration is free!
While viewing the full text of the case, select from upgrade options to Shepardize® or view the fully-featured case on lexis.com including Core Terms, Shepard's® Signals, Case Summaries, Print Options, and more. lexisONE offers access to comprehensive content and flexible services for faster, more efficient legal research. Review our flexible LexisNexis® subscriptions offered through daily, weekly or monthly research packages.
| Brown v. United States, Nos. 99-CF-1544, 99-CF-1545, and 99-CF-1546,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly limited cross-examination of victim about prior sexual activity where defense counsel failed to proffer any information evidence was credible, nor did counsel explain how alleged activity would have undercut medical testimony.
|
|||||
| In re Schlemmer, No. 02-BG-1450,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court remanded District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility's report recommending that attorney who failed to file an appeal be publicly censured because censure was inconsistent with sanctions imposed in comparable cases.
|
|||||
| Chidel v. Hubbard, Nos. 02-CV-1390 & 02-CV-1405,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 15, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial compliance with statute requiring notice be given to District of Columbia was insufficient; doctor could not rely on employer's notice. Appellants were entitled to contribution of one-third since they were one of three tortfeasors.
|
|||||
| Douglas v. Lyles, No. 02-CV-1176,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 15, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Buyer was not barred from obtaining specific performance of contract to sell house executed by all of intestate heirs of deceased owner, although intestate heirs did not have legal title to entirety of property when the contract was signed.
|
|||||
| In re Thomas-Pinkney, No. 02-BG-974,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 15, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred for reckless misappropriation of client funds, although it was a close case and she had no prior disciplinary record, did not act dishonestly, and had a record of very considerable service to the community.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. United States, No. 02-CF-742,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 15, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury instruction correctly stated law with respect to carrying pistol without license based on constructive possession theory and did not confuse jury. Sentence for carrying pistol without license was remanded as basis for sentence was unclear.
|
|||||
| Reaves-Bey v. Karr, No. 03-CV-67,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 15, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Negligence claim was separate from assault claim, where injured party alleged that courier service and manager knew of and failed to heed risk that messenger posed to injured party and that this proximately caused the assault.
|
|||||
| Rowland v. United States, Nos. 93-CF-1095 & 98-CO-730,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 15, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although admission of evidence that a defense witness refused to take a police-administered polygraph examination was erroneous, error was harmless because witness's account of the victim's suicidal gesture was thoroughly discredited in other ways.
|
|||||
| D.C. Hous. Auth. v. Cherry, Civil Action No.: 031t15931,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, January 20, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: No cure period was required where a landlord, the District of Columbia Housing Authority, served a notice to vacate on tenants, for being in violation of D.C. Code § 42-3505.01, because the statute did not require the landlord to give the tenants a cure period before seeking eviction as the basis of the eviction was a discrete criminal act.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Contact Us |
| Copyright® 2009 LexisNexis , a division of Reed Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. |
