 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| District of Columbia v. Place, No. 04-TX-968,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Legislative history clarified that supplemental assessment increases under D.C. Code Ann. § 47-829 could be made only to reflect changes in improvements, as when construction had occurred, not to reflect increased value of land, which could only occur pursuant to a scheduled general assessment.
|
|||||
| In re Cleaver-Bascombe, No. 04-BG-1540,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Findings that attorney submitted false voucher for payment for representing indigent client and then lied about her actions to disciplinary authorities were at odds with recommended sanction under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 9 that was suited to address problems of sloppy bookkeeping rather than dishonesty.
|
|||||
| Prince Constr. Co. v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals Bd., No. 03-AA-1338,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Once contractor had accepted full payment from the District of Columbia pursuant to consent decree, it was judicially estopped from seeking penalties for late payment pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 2-221.03.
|
|||||
| Robert Siegel, Inc. v. District of Columbia, No. 05-CV-706,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Neither the District of Columbia Stadium Financing Act nor the closely related Cost Ceiling Act authorized property owners in area of proposed ballpark to challenge, in court, the process by which the District Council oversaw activities of Chief Financial Officer in conducting property revaluation study.
|
|||||
| Schecter v. Merchs. Home Delivery, Inc., No. 04-CV-1071,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a tort action after delivery persons allegedly stole valuables while installing a washing machine, the question of whether the delivery persons were employees of a delivery corporation should have been submitted to the jury, but they were not acting within the scope of their employment when they misappropriated the valuables.
|
|||||
| United States v. Stephenson, No. 05-CO-646,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal with prejudice, without warning to prosecution, was not warranted on record that failed to show four-month failure to secure defendant's return to District of Columbia from Maryland prejudiced his speedy trial rights, although dismissal without prejudice might have been an appropriate sanction.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
