 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Eagle Maint. Servs. v. D.C. Contract Appeals Bd., No. 03-CV-1567,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under a contract requiring a contractor to build a recycling facility, found void ab initio, it was error to find the contractor not entitled to costs to build the facility, as under D.C. Code ¿ 2-302.05(d)(2) (2001), it could recover costs actually incurred, but the District of Columbia could recover a refund of excess payments to the contractor.
|
|||||
| In re Calomiris, No. 05-PR-1454,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trustee's appeal from a trial court's denial of his motion for summary judgment, seeking dismissal of litigation between trustees on the basis that such was to be determined by arbitration, was dismissed, as such denial was not appealable as a final order under D.C. Code ¿ 16-4317 because there was no contractual agreement to arbitrate.
|
|||||
| In re DeMaio, No. 04-BG-244,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court imposed suspension rather than reciprocal discipline of disbarment levied by Maryland court for attorney's false allegations against judge. Substantially different discipline exception of D.C. Bar. R. XI, ¿ 11(c)(4) applied since, unlike Maryland, District of Columbia did not prohibit statements made with reckless disregard as to their truth.
|
|||||
| Jones v. United States, Nos. 03-CF-1440, 03-CF-1493,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court erred in refusing defendant's request to link his defense of self-defense explicitly to a charge against him of aggravated assault where it was already linked to a charge of malicious disfigurement (MD); there was a reasonable probability that the jury believed that the defense was applicable only to the MD charge.
|
|||||
| Richardson v. United States, No. 01-CF-11,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 2, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a trial court conducted a proper inquiry into the allegations made by defendant concerning improper jury contact by two defense witnesses during defendant's criminal trial which allegedly resulted in juror bias and taint, there was no abuse of discretion in the trial court's denial of the motions where no bias or prejudice was found.
|
|||||
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. |
