 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Certain Underwriters at Lloyd's London v. Ashland, Inc., No. 07-CV-1004,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 12, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although company did not initially refer to section of agreement with insurers detailing interest owed on payments capped by another provision of agreement, the interest issue was briefed and argued by parties, was inextricably intertwined with cap issues, and, thus, was within scope of issues submitted to arbitrator that could be decided by him.
|
|||||
| In re Thomas-Edwards, No. 09-BG-130,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 12, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Biomet Inc. v. Finnegan Henderson LLP, No. 07-CV-813,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A law firm's decision not to challenge a punitive damage award against its client as unconstitutional in its initial appeal was a reasonable, tactical litigation decision involving an unsettled point of law. Thus, under the judgmental immunity doctrine, it could not be held liable to the client for malpractice.
|
|||||
| In re Gonzalez, No. 07-BG-104,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 19, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney did not make a showing necessary to justify a departure from the norm of identical discipline, and because none of the grounds in D.C. Bar R. XI, ¿ 11(c) was established, the attorney was suspended from the practice of law for 90 days, with reinstatement conditioned on proof of rehabilitation under D.C. Bar R. XI, ¿ 3(a)(2).
|
|||||
| Gause v. United States, No. 06-CF-20, No. 06-CF-47,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 24, 2009, 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. |
