 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brandywine Apts., LLC v. McCaster, Nos. 06-CV-1181 and 07-CV-699,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tenant did not establish that apartment complex intentionally discriminated against him in violation of District of Columbia Human Rights Act, as he did not show it engaged in intentional and purposeful conduct due to fact that he had a common law wife; thus, he also could not be awarded attorney fees pursuant to D.C. Code § 2-1403.13(a)(1)(E).
|
|||||
| Coulter v. Gerald Family Care, P.C., Nos. 06-CV-480 & 06-CV-751,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 26(c) protective order was remanded because it was overbroad and violated U.S. Const. amend. I rights. There was no abuse of discretion in awarding special items of costs under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54; it was reversible error to award attorney's fees absent compliance with D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(C)
|
|||||
| Doreus v. United States, No. 06-CF-247,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court violated defendant's U.S. Const. amend. VI right to confrontation, regarding his conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute, when it allowed DEA chemist's report into evidence without chemist being made available for cross-examination; report was critical evidence used to prove substance was cocaine.
|
|||||
| Goines v. United States, No. 04-CM-532,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police did not illegally seize defendant in violation of her U.S. Const, amend. IV rights in investigating report of her slumped behind steering wheel of running vehicle; under the circumstances, police had reasonable belief of violation of D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 18, § 302.2, about safely operating vehicle, which led to drug paraphernalia discovery.
|
|||||
| Obiazor v. United States, No. 06-CF-100,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 29, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court violated defendant's U.S. Const. amend. VI's Confrontation Clause rights when it barred him from introducing evidence to support bias theory regarding alleged victim, and in disallowing cross-examination and evidence about victim's prior claims of alleged abuse; too, error was not harmless, as victim's testimony was central to case.
|
|||||
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. |
