 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bannum, Inc. v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, No. 04-AA-345,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board of Zoning Adjustment reasonably concluded that the prison operator was improperly given building permits under D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 11, § 801.7(k); that the specific nature and duration of the community correctional center the prison operator wanted to operate did not fit within that regulation was a reasonable interpretation of it.
|
|||||
| Finch v. District of Columbia, No. 05-CV-438,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: D.C. Code § 5-1031 (2005), imposing a limitations period on disciplinary actions against police officers, did not peremptorily extinguish such actions, so a reasonable time to adapt to the limit was intended, and an action filed within a week of the statute's effective date was timely, even for misconduct known for more than the limitations period.
|
|||||
| In re A.C.G., No. 03-FS-1540,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order terminating mother's parental rights under D.C. Code § 16-2353(b) and allowing great-aunt to adopt child was supported by evidence mother abandoned child at age of two months, failed to pay child support, and failed to seek counseling for child's half brother who had sexually abused child, thus failing to provide safe environment for child.
|
|||||
| In re De.S., No. 04-FS-1214,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Finding child was "neglected child" within meaning of D.C. Code § 16-2301(9)(A)(ii) was upheld; among other things, regularity of activity was supported by testimony of passers-by in neighborhood who knew drug activities were taking place, relative living in home admitted to selling drugs there, and unsecured weapon and ammunition were found there.
|
|||||
| Liu v. Allen, No. 03-CV-263,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney who failed to obtain green card for clients was not negligent for failing to file motion for reconsideration within time allotted under 8 C.F.R. § 106.5(a), where an expert opined that informal letter the attorney sent to INS comported with applicable standard of care because such an approach was often more effective than formal motion.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Ass'n of Postmasters of the United States v. Washington, Nos. 04-CV-1112 & 04-CV-1343,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a contract dispute between a postmasters association and a hotel in relation to the cancellation of two association conferences, the events specifically enumerated in the "For Cause" clause of the contract did not apply, and the trial court properly denied leave to amend the association's complaint, D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 15(a).
|
|||||
| TV Capital Corp. v. Paxson Communs. Corp., No. 04-CV-1329,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly granted a judgment in favor of a payee on a promissory note in the maker's suit for nonpayment because the note was not unconscionable and, after a federal regulatory agency basically defeated the purpose of the note, the payee had not waived its right to repayment.
|
|||||
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. |
