 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bonilla v. United States, No. 03-CF-879,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no factual basis, the trial court properly declined to give the requested jury instruction regarding a fight. There was no affirmative evidence adduced that could reasonably have been understood to show mutual combat rather than armed robbery and assault with intent to commit robbery while armed.
|
|||||
| Caulfield v. Stark, No. 04-CV-548,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: If a medical group was negligent in not following an insurance carrier's authorization procedures, no reasonable jury could find this was fraud, nor was a doctor's billing fraud shown, and personal injury claims were barred under the prior version of the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code § 28-3901 et seq. (2001).
|
|||||
| In re Park, Nos. 03-BG-1233 and 04-BG-209,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney's misconduct in Virginia involving immigration and probate matters violated D.C. R. Prof. 8.4(c), 7.1 (a), 1.3(c), and 1.1(a), (b), and because the attorney did not object to the recommended reciprocal discipline, he was suspended for six months nunc pro tunc to the date he filed an affidavit under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).
|
|||||
| Sykes v. United States, Nos. 97-CF-1898, 99-CO-785, 99-CO-1528 and 01-CO-1407,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The government's late disclosure of Brady information, and the consequent inability of the government or the defense to locate two potential defense witnesses who had given grand jury testimony that was favorable and potentially exculpatory, impinged on appellant's constitutional due process right to a fair opportunity to defend himself.
|
|||||
| Wash. Gas Energy Servs. v. District of Columbia PSC, Nos. 05-AA-155 & 05-AA-315, Nos. 05-AA-157 & 05-AA-426,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A public service commission gave no notice of a formula to assess electricity suppliers for part of its budget to affected parties, under D.C. Code § 2-505(a) (2001), so the assessments were invalid, as was retroactively assessing the companies for a prior fiscal year, and the companies, who had notice, had standing to raise others' lack of notice.
|
|||||
| McCamey v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 04-AA-211,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 15, 2006, 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. |
