 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bell v. United States, No. 04-CO-413,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision that recantation affidavit filed by government witness was not credible, and, thus, further consideration of defendant's third post-conviction motion was unnecessary was not error; Innocence Protection Act, D.C. Code Ann. § 22-4131 et seq., permitted trial court to discredit affidavit and terminate "actual innocence" inquiry.
|
|||||
| Blackledge v. United States, No. 03-CF-598,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions of kidnapping, D.C. Code § 22-2001 (2001), and other crimes were affirmed; the conviction of kidnapping and a conviction of enticing a child did not merge as the enticing conviction required the State to prove elements not included in a kidnapping charge.
|
|||||
| In re Anya, Nos. 04-BG-525 & 04-BG-1147,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since neither the attorney nor bar counsel filed exceptions to the professional responsibility board's report and its recommendation that the attorney be disbarred for multiple disciplinary violations, the appellate court's review of the recommendation was "especially deferential," and the appellate court found disbarment was the proper sanction.
|
|||||
| In re Harris-Smith, Nos. 02-BG-771 & 03-BG-102,,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since neither bar counsel nor the attorney excepted to a Board on Professional Responsibility recommendation of disbarment as identical reciprocal discipline, heightened deference was given to it under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2); as there was substantial support for the recommendation, the court adopted it and disbarred the attorney.
|
|||||
| In re Schainker, No. 03-BG-769,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court disbarred a District of Columbia attorney pursuant to D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) because his convictions in Michigan district court for conspiracy both to defraud the United States and to make false statements and commit mail fraud and wire fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. §§ 371, 1001, 1341, and 1343, all involved moral turpitude per se.
|
|||||
| McClain v. United States, No. 01-CF-1018,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While it was "odd" that defendant could be found not guilty of robbery while armed yet found guilty of both robbery and assault with a dangerous weapon, evidence supported any or all of the offenses for which instructions were given, and, therefore, it was not plain error for the trial judge to have charged the jury in the manner that he did.
|
|||||
| Weakley v. Burnham Corp., No. 03-CV-710,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to boiler manufacturers as injured party asserted he "frequently" was in immediate presence of, and worked on, manufacturers' boilers, and trial court erred in requiring he provide more detailed information regarding contact with products to be permitted discovery or to avoid summary judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
