 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 1st Atl. Guar. Corp. v. Tillerson, No. 04-CV-932,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Final judgment in a wrongful foreclosure action, based on a stipulation by the parties, was an unsecured award of monetary damages that preserved the purchasers' title to the property. Security interests therefore were not extinguished by the litigation, and they had priority over the judgment lien based on the unsecured monetary award.
|
|||||
| Aon Risk Servs. v. Estate of Coyne, Nos. 05-CV-38 & 05-CV-39,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's judgment for the decedent's company and his estate on professional negligence and breach of contract claims against an insurance broker was affirmed as the court did not abuse its discretion in making evidentiary rulings under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4) and prejudgment interest was improper under D.C. Code § 15-108.
|
|||||
| Caldwell v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 06-AA-79,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision by the Compensation Review Board of the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services was reversed and remanded for further proceedings as there was no substantial evidence, under D.C. Code §§ 2-501 and 2-510 et seq., that a claimant had fully recovered from all the medical problems resulting from her employment by a certain date.
|
|||||
| Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. D.C. Dep't of Emple. Servs., No. 05-AA-783,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding employee remained temporarily and totally disabled and authorization of more treatment was vacated as compensation order reflected enough confusion so appellate court could not say Compensation Review Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence; among other things, doctor could not prove meniscus tear occurred at time of injury.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Davis, No. 05-PR-1475,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Superior court's dismissal of a legatee's will contest under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 41(b) and refusal to reinstate the complaint under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b) was reversed because the legatee's single failure to appear at a pretrial conference under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 16(b) did not justify the sanction of dismissal.
|
|||||
| Negussie v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 05-AA-852,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision by the Compensation Review Board of the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services was reversed and remanded because an administrative law judge erred under D.C. Code § 32-1508 by concluding that he was obligated to choose a disability percentage rating provided either by the claimant's or the employer's medical examiner.
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. United States, No. 97-CF-1924,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 25, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Testimony about defendant's prior contacts with police was admissible, relevant evidence, as it tended to make more likely the fact that defendant was properly identified by police. Despite failure to comply with D.C. Code § 5-119.02, officers' actions in returning the evidence to the victim were not so culpable as to require sanctions be imposed.
|
|||||
| Potts v. United States, NOS. 05-CM-781, 05-CM-867 & 05-CM-928,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 30, 2007, * Decided * The decision in these consolidated appeals originally was released as an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. On motion of appellee filed February 28, 2007, we now reissue the opinion for publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions under 40 U.S.C.S. § 6135, for an unlawful display on United States Supreme Court grounds, were affirmed as jurisdiction existed in the Superior Court of the District of Columbia under 40 U.S.C.S. § 6137(b), 40 U.S.C.S. § 6135 did not violate the First Amendment, and defendants' costumes were to bring into public notice a movement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
