 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Anderson v. Abidoye, No. 02-CV-432,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 15, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial judge erred in leaving the HUD portion of the abatement in rent in the hands of the landlord because it was fairer to compensate the tenant fully than to allow the landlord to retain rent payments made on the tenant's behalf.
|
|||||
| Elmore v. Stevens, No. 01-CV-791,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 15, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court committed reversible error both in informing the parties that the default was conclusive except for damages and in rendering judgment based on an inadequate complaint. The complaint never alleged that the resident did anything.
|
|||||
| Fed. Mktg. Co. v. Va. Impression Prods. Co., Nos. 98-CV-960 and 99-CV-231,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 15, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly found a competitor was in violation of a consent decree under which it would not market products under another marketer's name, interpreted and enforced the consent decree, and awarded the marketer damages and attorney's fees.
|
|||||
| In re Ryan, No. 01-SP-1035,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 15, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suspended District of Columbia lawyer could not argue that she was exempt from prosecution for contempt because her practice was restricted to immigration matters, where she failed to disclose her suspension or her limited practice to clients.
|
|||||
| Pederson v. Wirth, Small Claims No. 4347-03,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, May 21, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law, pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 50, where there was no evidence as to any prior bad conduct by defendant's dog that would have placed defendant on notice that he was a "dangerous dog," as defined in D.C. Code Ann. ¿ 8-1901(1)(A)(i)-(ii).
|
|||||
| Thomas v. United States, No. 00-CF-344,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 22, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
