 |
|
 |
|
|
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. Chambers, No. 07-CV-173,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a personal injury suit, a jury should have been instructed that an officer was on an emergency run, under D.C. Code § 2-411(4) (2006), because, despite the officer's testimony that she did not think she was responding to an emergency, evidence of the officer's entire pursuit of a vehicle showed she was on an emergency run, as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Haywood v. United States, No. 06-CF-772,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as limitation of defendant's cross-examination of a detective did not violate defendant's Sixth Amendment, U.S. Const. amend. VI, rights. Chapman standard was not applied.
|
|||||
| Howerton v. United States, Nos. 04-CF-1058 & 06-CO-599,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's weapons-related convictions under D.C. Code §§ 22-4504(a), 7-2502.01, and 7-2506.01(3) (2001), did not violate his Second Amendment rights because (1) nothing showed that he possessed a gun or ammunition in question for self-defense, and (2) it was not plain that the statutes under which he was convicted were facially unconstitutional.
|
|||||
| In re Smith, No. 08-BG-1604,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 19, 2009, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Leach v. D.C. Police & Firefighters' Ret. & Relief Bd., No. 06-AA-844,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The record was insufficient to determine whether the District of Columbia Police and Firefighters' Retirement and Relief Board's finding that a firefighter's back injury did not occur on the job was supported by substantial evidence. The delay in reporting the injury was not substantial evidence tending to disprove the on-duty injury inference.
|
|||||
| Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth. v. Barksdale-Showell, Nos. 06-CV-1106 & 06-CV-1178,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority's (WMATA) failure to warn of wet escalator was not quintessentially governmental activity under D.C. Code § 9-1107.01(80). WMATA's lack of policy underlying its failure to warn was not social, economic, or political decision that was immunized from negligent warning claim.
|
|||||
| Washington v. United States, No.05-CF-487,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, February 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's drug possession and distribution convictions were reversed because (1) a drug analysis was admitted, under D.C. Code § 48-905.06 (2001), without its author's testimony, while it was not timely given to defendant, (2) defendant was not allowed to cross-examine the author, and (3) the error was not harmless as to lesser-included crimes.
|
|||||
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. |
