 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gonzalez v. Internacional de Elevadores, S.A., No. 03-CV-551,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, January 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Injured person seeking to recover from Mexican corporation for an elevator accident in Mexico failed to establish personal jurisdiction where the corporation was served in Mexico, was created and registered under the laws of Mexico, and was domiciled in Mexico. There was also no showing of the minimum contacts needed for long-arm jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| Akassy v. William Penn Apts., L.P., No. 02-CV-141, No. 02-CV-291,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where tenant's violation of consent decree that stayed earlier eviction proceeding was prompted by tenant's challenge to legality of rent increase, under principles of District of Columbia case law, eviction should have been stayed pending outcome of administrative challenge, although landlord was entitled to order protecting its own interest.
|
|||||
| In re Rehberger, No. 98-BG-333,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding that an attorney's misdemeanor sexual battery and simple battery convictions under Georgia law were crimes of moral turpitude on the facts, under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a), as such were base, vile, and depraved, as well as contrary to good morals, his disbarment was ordered.
|
|||||
| In re Schoeneman, No. 02-BG-1186,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney lied and misled his clients and engaged in the practice of law while suspended, he interfered with the administration of justice, in violation of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a), 1.3(a), (b), 1.4(a), 8.4(c), (d), 1.16 (d), and D.C. Ct. App. R. 49(b)(2)(E); thus, the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for four months.
|
|||||
| In re Zdravkovich, No. 04-BG-751,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1), findings of misappropriation of client property that supported attorney's disbarment in Maryland also supported his disbarment in the District of Columbia.
|
|||||
| In re Zentz, Nos. 04-BG-1206 & 04-BG-1347,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reciprocal and functionally identical discipline of public censure was imposed in two matters against an attorney, given that no exception to the Board's report and recommendation were filed and no miscarriage of justice occurred in two prior Maryland disciplinary proceedings.
|
|||||
| Kamerow v. D.C. Rental Hous. Comm'n, No. 04-AA-1293,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A determination of the District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission (RHC) that a landlord's appeal was untimely was affirmed; it was not unreasonable or arbitrary for the RHC to rule that the appeal was untimely since it was not received at the RHC's office until 4:49 p.m., after its official hours pursuant to D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 14, § 3800.2.
|
|||||
| Kuri Bros. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, No. 03-AA-1032,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where corporation failed to request hearing until 24 days after notice of intent to revoke certificate of occupancy was served, and did not show "good cause" for its failure, it was not denied due process before department. In light of corporation's default, de novo hearing on appeal with burden of proof on corporation was not improper.
|
|||||
| Varner v. District of Columbia, Nos. 04-CV-488 and 04-CV-547,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure to establish objective standard of care for universities in administering discipline prevented parents of murdered student from establishing university's liability for student's murder by another student, and despite alleged negligent investigation of another murder, public duty doctrine shielded District of Columbia from liability.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
