 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Agomo v. Fenty, No. 03-CV-813,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's grant of summary judgment to the District of Columbia on a Fifth Amendment challenge by a vehicle owner and a leasing corporation to an automated traffic enforcement system established by D.C. Code § 50-2209.01 (2001) et seq. was affirmed because the owner's and the corporation's due process rights were not violated by the system.
|
|||||
| In re C.M., Nos. 05-FS-1529 & 06-FS-157,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was sufficient evidence to support termination of a mother's parental rights, D.C. Code § 16-2353(b)(1)-(4). The mother's child had not lived with his mother for eight years, ever since she moved to Georgia without him. When the child was returned to the mother, he was removed following allegations of abuse imposed upon him by her boyfriend.
|
|||||
| In re C.W., No. 05-FS-847,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Family court's order that Child Family Services Agency pay ward amount foster parents diverted for own use was reversed as only possible theory under which District could have been held liable was negligence, and family court, holding a neglect review, was not proper forum to determine whether District of Columbia was liable for alleged negligence.
|
|||||
| Mejia v. United States, No. 04-CM-517,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction was reversed and remanded because, although the appellate court did not draw any conclusion that the trial judge had an actual bias under D.C. Code Jud. Conduct Canon 3(B)(5) and 3(E)(1) which influenced the verdict, an appearance of bias might have existed, and the integrity of the judicial process was thus compromised.
|
|||||
| Shields v. United States, No. 03-CF-1318,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if counsel was ineffective for failing to avail himself of remedies offered to correct flaws with jury selection process, defendant was not entitled to relief as there was no showing of bias; because trial court invited counsel to revise strike sheet and remedy perceived inadequacy, and counsel declined, defendant failed to show prejudice.
|
|||||
| Abadie v. D.C. Contract Appeals Bd., Nos. 03-CV-1096 & 03-CV-1134,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board exceeded its jurisdiction in considering a losing bidder's objection to a contract award because the objection was untimely under D.C. Code § 2-309.08(b)(2) in that the objection was based on an additional ground which was made several weeks after the bidder's original objection.
|
|||||
| District of Columbia v. Pizzulli, No. 03-CV-1036,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a personal representative's action against managerial employees of the District of Columbia's Child and Family Services Agency was improper under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) as the employees were not entitled to absolute immunity, nor was it shown that the representative was unable to prove any facts to support her claims.
|
|||||
| Hudson v. Shapiro, No. 03-CV-1250,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court judgment was vacated, and the case was remanded as it was possible that a default judgment was void because of a violation of due process concerning the ex parte damages hearing. Consequently, the trial court had to make factual findings and decide whether the default judgment was to be vacated under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4).
|
|||||
| In re Zelaya, Guardianship No. 55-03,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PROBATE DIVISION, February 13, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trustee's amended petition to terminate bond, which was basically a motion to approve the transfer to Maryland of a special needs trust, was denied, without prejudice, because the trial court was concerned about the trustee's fees and was not then prepared to decide the issue as it wanted certain questions regarding the matter to be answered.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| Copyright© 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
