 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| District of Columbia v. Jones, No. 06-CV-23,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed and remanded to dismiss a deputy chief of staff's complaint against a mayor because the facts were sufficient to determine that the mayor was entitled to absolute immunity for statements he made to the press about the deputy, and the motives prompting his statements were immaterial. Therefore, no more discovery was required.
|
|||||
| Ellison v. United States, No. 05-CF-375,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's two convictions for misdemeanor sexual abuse were affirmed because there was no violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment as the charged offenses did not merge in that the two criminal acts occurred during the course of one encounter, and defendant chose to satisfy two different criminal impulses in the encounter.
|
|||||
| Hogan v. Wash. Nursing Facility, Ltd. P'ship, No. 06-CV-36,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In negligence action, patient's daughter was entitled to new trial on issue of damages for pain and suffering where nursing facility's negligence was proximate cause of injury and no reasonable jury could have failed to award some damages for pain and suffering; among other things, conclusion patient suffered pain comported with common experience.
|
|||||
| In re Coleman, No. 06-BG-375,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney received two-year reciprocal suspension from practice of law in the District of Columbia based on discipline he received in Pennsylvania for violating that state's professional conduct rules by continuing to practice law while he was on inactive status as a result of his failure to fulfill his continuing legal education obligations.
|
|||||
| In re Hoffman, No. 06-BG-371,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of three months in a reciprocal disciplinary action under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 because of his representation in Louisiana of several individuals with conflicting interests; however, the suspension was stayed in favor of one year of unsupervised probation.
|
|||||
| In re Scanio, No. 05-BG-789,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 30 days because he violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) as he was dishonest in his dealings with an insurance company while representing himself in settlement negotiations, and in separate, but related, explanations regarding his conduct to his law firm.
|
|||||
| In re Godette, No. 05-BG-412,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded because, contrary to the finding of the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility, there was substantial evidence that an attorney deliberately avoided service of process in a disciplinary proceeding. Thus, the Board was to reconsider whether the attorney was to be required to prove his fitness to practice law.
|
|||||
| In re Hall, No. 05-BG-883,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, was suspended for 40 days from the practice of law in the District of Columbia under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 because the actions of gross misdemeanor child abuse and neglect that led to his suspension in Nevada constituted misconduct under D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b).
|
|||||
| Sanchez v. United States, No. 05-CF-297,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 5, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded because the retrial of the criminal defendant, a juvenile, after a mistrial over his objection that was unsupported by manifest necessity under D.C. Code § 16-2301(3)(A), as the trial court had authority under D.C. Code § 16-2302(b) to proceed with the trial to verdict, violated double jeopardy.
|
|||||
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. |
