 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Abdus-Price v. United States, Nos. 02-CF-936 and 02-CF-1053,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court instruction to jury to consider the statement of witness not for its substantive truth but only as a prior inconsistent statement to assist jury in assessing her credibility regarding assertion that second defendant robbed female victim was not error; no objection was made, and no D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 52 plain error was shown.
|
|||||
| District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A., Corp., No. 03-CV-24, 03-CV-38,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although District of Columbia law did not allow stretching of traditional tort liability so far as to impose liability on anyone who might have originally manufactured or distributed guns that were later distributed illegally, victims of illegal assault weapons might recover under strict liability provision of D.C. Code Ann. § 7-2551.02 (2001).
|
|||||
| In re Aldridge, No. 95-BG-293,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After an attorney's indefinite suspension in another state for a psychological disability, the attorney, who was previously suspended, did not contest reciprocal discipline. She could seek reinstatement before the end of the prior suspensions, which had not begun as she did not file an affidavit, if she showed they were due to the same disability.
|
|||||
| Osborne v. Kish, CA-5874-53,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, PROBATE DIVISION, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Considering that a trustee had received annual commissions for 11 years, that sufficient commission had to be reserved for a successor trustee, and that the trustee's resignation was voluntary, payment of a turnover commission under D.C. Code Ann. § 19-1307.08 (Supp. 2005) and D.C. Super. Ct. R. Prob. Div. 225(d)(1), was unreasonable.
|
|||||
| Young v. Scales, No. 03-CV-1515,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 21, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an injured party shot by an officer during an arrest sued the officer under 42 U.S.C.S. § 1983 for violating the injured party's Fourth Amendment rights, the injured party did not show he could claim self-defense, nor did he show it was unreasonable or unnecessary for the officer to fire at him, so the officer could claim qualified immunity.
|
|||||
| Peterson v. Visa U.S.A. Inc., Civil Action No.: 03-8080,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, April 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Local consumer lacked standing to sue the providers under D.C. Code §§ 28-4509(a) and 28-4508, for allegedly high debit card transaction fees charged to merchants; local consumer was not under D.C. Code § 28-4509(a) an indirect purchaser of providers' debit card services and harm to him under D.C. Code § 28-4508 was too remote and speculative.
|
|||||
| Pinzon v. A & G Props., No. 02-CV-358,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 28, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly paid money held in the court registry in a landlord/tenant dispute to the landlord under D.C. Super. Ct. R.P. Landlord Tenant Branch 5(b) because any property damage claims or set-off asserted by the tenant were subject to a separate civil action and were not proper in the landlord's possessory 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. |
