 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Crawford v. District of Columbia, No. 04-CV-116,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under D.C. Code Ann. § 1-615.53, of the District of Columbia Whistleblower Protection Act, since legitimate and independent reasons existed for termination, the former general counsel was barred from civil relief. There was no direct causal link between termination and protected disclosures for liability under D.C. Code Ann. § 1-615.53.
|
|||||
| Hines v. United States, Nos. 03-CF-265 and 03-CF-317,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was undisputed that defendant was confined to a halfway house pursuant to a court order and that he lawfully left the halfway house to attend court, but failed to return on time, the evidence was sufficient to show that defendant knew his failure to return to the halfway house on time would violate D.C. Code Ann. § 22-2601(a)(1) (2001).
|
|||||
| In re Brown, No. 05-BG-564,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney had been suspended from the practice of law in Maryland, he received a reciprocal suspension of 30 days in the District of Columbia after his prior suspension in the District of Columbia ended.
|
|||||
| In re Carpenter, No. 02-BG-1349,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As first-degree murder was a crime of moral turpitude pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 11-2503(a), an attorney was disbarred after she was found guilty by a Connecticut jury of capital felony, murder as an accessory, and conspiracy to commit murder.
|
|||||
| Matthews v. United States, No. 03-CF-432,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Impeachment of defendant's grandmother, an alibi witness, with her failure to tell authorities that her grandson could not have committed the crimes with which he was charged because he was at home with her did not likely distract the jury, and two possession of a firearm during a crime of violence convictions merged.
|
|||||
| Robinson v. United States, No. 97-CF-1766,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not err in refusing to conduct further inquiry into defendant's Batson challenge because defendant failed to make a prima facie case of intentional discrimination. By itself, the exercise of a single strike against the only prospective juror who was simultaneously young, black, and male had little probative value.
|
|||||
| Baker v. United States, No. 04-CF-260,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 26, 2006, Decided ** The court has granted appellee's consent motion to amend the opinion filed on January 26, 2006.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support the conviction for criminal contempt, under D.C. Code Ann. § 11-944(a) (2001), because, although defendant stated that he understood that he was to completely stay away from the victim while the case was pending, both directly and indirectly, he wrote four letters to her from jail.
|
|||||
| In re Belardi, No. 01-BG-222,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 26, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney's conviction did not involve moral turpitude under D.C. Code Ann. § 11-2503(a), and because the Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation was unopposed, the recommendation was adopted, the attorney was suspended for a year without a fitness requirement, and a reciprocal disciplinary referral was dismissed.
|
|||||
| Graham v. United States, No. 02-CO-1050,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 30, 2006, Decided ** This case was originally decided in an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. We now publish the opinion, with minor editorial revisions, having granted appellee's motion for publication.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition for a writ of habeas corpus was properly considered a motion to vacate his sentence under § 23-110 as defendant was serving his sentence in a federal prison in Louisiana and the trial court lacked jurisdiction under D.C. Code Ann. § 16-1901 (2001) to entertain a habeas petition directed against federal respondents.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
