 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Coffin v. United States, No. 05-CM-752,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for attempted second-degree cruelty to children under D.C. Code § 22-1101(b) was affirmed as his conduct of erratically operating a car, while admittedly impaired and while two unrestrained children accompanied him as passengers, created a grave risk of bodily injury to the children, and subjected him to criminal liability.
|
|||||
| Hutchins v. Compton, No. 05-FM-1065,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly exercised its discretion under D.C. Code § 16-914(a)(2) in determining the best interest of a child and in crafting a joint custody arrangement between the parties that provided for the sharing of responsibilities of child-rearing and allowed both parents to have a meaningful relationship with the child.
|
|||||
| In re Baron, No. 06-BG-187,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, who had been disbarred in Florida for settling one case without the client's knowledge and failing to attend a hearing in administrative appeal of another client's case, resulting in dismissal, was disbarred in the District of Columbia based on the rebuttable presumption in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f) favoring identical reciprocal discipline.
|
|||||
| In re Daum, No. 06-BG-414,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was publicly censured in the District of Columbia in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding as he did not file an exception after he was reprimanded in Virginia pursuant to an agreed disposition endorsed by the attorney and the Virginia Bar Counsel in which the attorney acknowledged having violated Virginia Rules of Professional Conduct.
|
|||||
| In re Gonzalez-Perez, No. 06-BG-1359,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of 90 days because he falsely stated in proceedings before the U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Service that he was a member in good standing of the District of Columbia Bar when in fact he had been administratively suspended for the failure to pay bar dues.
|
|||||
| In re Outlaw, No. 05-BG-1470,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended for 60 days as substantial evidence supported the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility's factual findings under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g) that the statute of limitations expired on a claim by one of the attorney's clients and the attorney failed to notify the client that her cause of action was time-barred.
|
|||||
| In re Ryan, No. 06-BG-855,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 1, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended for 60 days as he participated in a Maryland proceeding, admitted sufficiency of evidence against him, and consented to 60-day suspension in Maryland. He consented to identical reciprocal discipline in District of Columbia, and there was no basis for any exception set forth in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c) to apply.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
