 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Drager, Nos. 01-BG-959 & 02-BG-1302,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In reciprocal discipline case wherein New York attorney had been disbarred for three counts of failure to cooperate with grievance committee and did not object to District of Columbia (DC) recommendation for same sanction, he was disbarred in DC.
|
|||||
| Moore v. United States, No. 01-CF-673,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Belated disclosure that victim first stated that his assailant had worn mask was not material Brady violation as it was not likely that victim and three witnesses, each having known defendant for at least five years, mistakenly identified defendant.
|
|||||
| Rodgers Bros. Custodial Servs. v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, No. 02-AA-951,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of Zoning Adjustment properly affirmed ALJ's finding that company was not just storing materials, as its application for certificate of occupancy had stated. It appeared to be processing trash and was not in compliance with regulations.
|
|||||
| Teru Chang v. Inst. for Public-Private P'ships, Inc., No. 02-CV-1256,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment in favor of employer was proper in employee's suit alleging it fired her because it perceived she had a disability (hypertension) and because she took protected medical leave. Employee could not show employer's reasons were pretext.
|
|||||
| Watkins v. United States, No. 00-CF-540,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court rule and appellate supervisory authority did not entitle defendant to the grand jury testimony of a deceased witness whose hearsay was admitted, Brady did not require the testimony's disclosure, and replacing a juror was no abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Digital Broad. Corp. v. Rosenman & Colin, LLP, No. 00-CV-533,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 15, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to set aside a default judgment where appellant showed no good cause, in that it had six weeks to find counsel and respond to a suit for non-payment of legal fees.
|
|||||
| Ahmed v. United States, No. 01-CF-682,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 22, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for child and sexual abuse were affirmed because defendant did not object to the ultimate composition of the jury. Expert testimony on child memory was not needed, and the child victim could testify outside of defendant's presence.
|
|||||
| Austin v. United States, No. 02-CF-1455,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 22, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A defendant's conviction for carrying a pistol without a license was upheld where an Attorney General's memorandum provided no relief from conviction, and the defendant failed to show any discriminatory application of prosecutorial discretion.
|
|||||
| Makins v. District of Columbia, No. 02-SP-241, CQL01-7029,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 23, 2004, Filed
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. |
