 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Drs. Groover, Christie & Merritt, P.C. v. Burke, Nos. 04-CV-1115, 04-CV-1116, 05-CV-545, 05-CV-546,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jury's award of $ 2 million for pain and suffering in medical malpractice action should have been reduced under Maryland law where Maryland had most significant relationship to the case. Maryland was where the patient suffered a stroke, where the MRI scan was misread and the misleading report written, and where the patient lived and was employed.
|
|||||
| In re Ayele, No. 06-BG-385,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of one year and one day in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding as there was no miscarriage of justice in the Virginia proceeding, and the reviewing court found support in the record for the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility's findings.
|
|||||
| In re Elgin, No. 04-BG-919,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from practice in District of Columbia for six months, and required to pay client restitution as condition of reinstatement, after attorney, inter alia, failed to explain fee agreement to client, failed to advise his financial and personal interests conflicted with hers, and settled creditor action without informing client.
|
|||||
| Ottenberg's Bakers, Inc. v. D.C. Comm'n on Human Rights, No. 01-AA-669,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the findings upon which the District of Columbia Human Rights Commission relied were supported by substantial evidence, its decision that the reasons given by an employer for its termination of an employee were a pretext was accepted. There was a rational basis for the Commission to find the employer's explanation was insufficient.
|
|||||
| Galligan v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 05-AA-1343,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order dismissing a pro se employee's application for review was vacated, and the case was remanded to the Compensation Review Board of the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services (DOES) because the employee was entitled to consideration of whether she relied on mistaken assurances by DOES officials about how to file a timely appeal.
|
|||||
| In re McClain, No. 05-BG-1240,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 15, 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 in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding because there was no miscarriage of justice in the Maryland proceeding where the attorney was suspended, and the attorney did not oppose the imposition of identical reciprocal discipline.
|
|||||
| In re Rostoker, No. 04-BG-1388,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 because the attorney was disbarred in the State of Massachusetts, and the reviewing court did not find that the recommended sanction was unwarranted or inconsistent under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1).
|
|||||
| Jones v. United States, No. 04-CO-1171,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because appellant alleged facts which, if demonstrated, would establish ineffective assistance of counsel, and because the exculpatory value of the evidence proffered turned on the credibility of the witnesses specifically identified in his D.C. Code § 23-110 motion, it was improper for the motions judge to summarily deny appellant's motion.
|
|||||
| Young v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 05-AA-992,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Compensation Review Board decision was reversed, and the matter was remanded because, while the presumption of a medical causal relationship was rebutted, the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services failed to consider possible alternative work-related causes of the adverse symptoms regarding an employee's disability claim.
|
|||||
| Watley v. United States, Nos. 03-CF-325 & 05-CO-1020,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 22, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a hearing regarding trial counsel's failure to file motion to suppress evidence because officer pointed to no "particular facts" from which officer reasonably believed that defendant was armed and dangerous and thus, record did not "conclusively show" defendant would have been entitled to no relief on a motion to suppress.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
