 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Amatangelo v. Schultz, No. 03-CV-288,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting an injured party's motion pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b) to enforce a high-low agreement in an auto accident negligence action; the high-low agreement only applied where the jury found defendants liable, and the jury did not find defendants liable, so the injured party was not entitled to collect.
|
|||||
| Byrd v. United States, No. 03-CF-534,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where codefendant, who, according to government, aided and abetted defendant, testified against defendant, instruction admonishing jury to consider testimony of alleged accomplice, codefendant, in light of his motive to fabricate was proper. While instruction echoed government's aiding and abetting theory, it did not endorse that theory.
|
|||||
| District of Columbia v. Fremeau, Nos. 03-CV-591 and 03-CV-639,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: New evidentiary hearing was not required in a fire department employee's employment termination case when a substitute hearing examiner was designated as the new examiner thoroughly reviewed the case, the administrative agency's decision did not depend on credibility of the witnesses, and fire department employee waived any error by not objecting.
|
|||||
| Levitt v. D.C. Office of Emple. Appeals, No. 03-CV-1249,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even though a government employee did not allege either scenario in D.C. Code Ann. § 1-624.08(f)(2) that allowed review of an agency decision to abolish a position, detailed contentions of improper actions with respect to a transfer to a new position that was abolished a month later were not frivolous and warranted discovery and a hearing.
|
|||||
| Meshel v. Ohev Sholom Talmud Torah, No. 03-CV-952,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 10, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under objective contract law principles and the District of Columbia Uniform Arbitration Act (DCUAA), D.C. Code Ann. §§ 16-4301, -4302(a) (2001), the determination of whether a religious congregation's bylaws compelled arbitration of a dispute with the congregation's members was not prohibited by the religion clauses of U.S. Const. amend. I.
|
|||||
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. |
