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.
	State Courts - District of Columbia - January 5 - January 11, 2006
	Office of the People's Counsel v. PSC of D.C., No. 04-AA-07, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 5, 2006, Decided View this case - free   Overview: Public Service Commission's process for approving electric meters pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 34-303 and a properly-enacted regulation did not require public notice and comment; thus, Public Service Commission's granting of electric power company's request to use new meters without use of notice and comment procedures was permitted. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Marquez v. United States, No. 03-CM-1541, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 11, 2006*, Decided * The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. At the request of the appellee, it was later published. See Marquez v. United States, 893 A.2d 561 D.C. 2006 Thereafter, the appellant filed a motion "to rescind publication of the opinion, to revise it, or, in the alternative, to recall the mandate and petition for rehearing." In response, the United States suggested certain revisions, which were not opposed by the appellant and have been accepted by the panel. Those revisions are incorporated in this version of the opinion. View this case - free   Overview: Admission of an officer's testimony that defendant's girlfriend said that defendant told her that he was "going to kick her ass" did not violate the Confrontation Clause, as the admission of this testimony could not be found to affect substantial rights. The testimony constituted a minor part of the evidence against defendant. Search Cases for Free | Daily, Weekly or Monthly Research Subscription Offers | Case Summary Email Service - 50% off
	Back to Top
	www.lexisnexis.com |  About LexisNexis |  Terms & Conditions |  Customer Support |  Sitemap |  Contact Us   CopyrightŠ 2008  LexisNexis®  All rights reserved.