 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brisbon v. United States, No. 03-CF-318,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in refusing to admit the testimony of a defense witness about an excited utterance made by defendant. The defense witness's reliability was for the jury to resolve. Because this error was not harmless, defendant's conviction for voluntary manslaughter while armed was reversed and remanded for a new trial.
|
|||||
| Gary Inv. Corp. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Health, No. 04-AA-554,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fine imposed on owner for violation of D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 21, § 700.3 was affirmed as existence of alternate penalty scheme did not vitiate notice that violator might be subject to either fine. Dual penalty provisions were not impermissibly vague as D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 21, § 700.3 unambiguously provided for containerized storage of solid wastes.
|
|||||
| Hartridge v. United States, Nos. 97-CF-1867, 97-CF-2028 & 98-CF-153,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While there was substantial delay in a defendant's trial (twenty-eight months), no Sixth Amendment speedy trial violation occurred; defendant's argument regarding prejudice was simply unpersuasive on the record. The trial court properly used its discretion and did not admit testimony showing a propensity to commit a crime.
|
|||||
| In re Mininsohn, No. 03-BG-1341 & 04-BG-338,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney did not dispute a recommendation for reciprocal discipline, and because there was no miscarriage of justice in the Maryland proceedings, as the attorney received due process, was represented by counsel, and presented witnesses on his own behalf, the attorney's misconduct, which included misappropriation, warranted disbarment.
|
|||||
| Twin Towers Plaza Tenants Ass'n v. Capitol Park Assocs., L.P., Nos. 04-CV-1534 & 04-CV-1575,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 23, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in ruling that owners' transfer of two buildings constituted sale under Sale Act, specifically D.C. Code Ann. § 42-3404.02(a), as transferring 95 percent of title was not the same as transferring "absolute title" and such a transaction was, by definition, transfer of special interest "falling short of complete ownership."
|
|||||
| Blackson v. United States, No. 06-CO-103,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, March 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a prosecution for obstructing the due administration of justice in an official proceeding, the trial court erred in ordering defendant's pretrial detention without bond pursuant to D.C. Code § 23-1322(b)(1)(C), as the record did not support a finding of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence.
|
|||||
| Blackson v. United States, No. 06-CO-103,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the record did not support a finding of dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence, where defendant, who was charged with obstruction of justice, had no prior criminal history or history of substance abuse, and the trial court did not comply with D.C. Code § 23-1322, the order of pretrial detention was reversed.
|
|||||
| Reams v. United States, No. 03-CF-1116,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a trial court erred by not letting defendant introduce, under the completeness doctrine, parts of his statement to police, of which the prosecution introduced parts, the error did not warrant his convictions' reversal, in light of strong eyewitness evidence of his guilt, as introducing the entire statement would not have changed the verdict.
|
|||||
| Zuurbier v. Medstar Health, Inc., No. 05-CV-13,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed in part as an employee's constructive discharge claim was timely under D.C. Code § 2-1403.16 as her amended complaints related back to the date of her initial complaint under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 15(c). However, her sex discrimination in pay claim was timely only as to paychecks she received a year before her action.
|
|||||
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. |
