 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Estate of Green, No. 03-PR-910,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 53(a), trial court was proper venue for special master to seek compensation for defending an appeal, and trial court erred in ruling that the compensation had to be sought in the appellate court. D.C. Ct. App. R. 39(d)(1) did not apply to the special master's compensation request.
|
|||||
| In re Perruso, No. 03-FM-159,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidentiary requirements under D.C. Code § 21-548 for revocation of outpatient commitment and imposition of inpatient commitment were satisfied by evidence that patient stopped taking her medications, which resulted in a return of her delusions and put her at risk of injury, and that the only way to eliminate the risk was inpatient treatment.
|
|||||
| In re Scinto, No. 05-BG-430,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because censure in the District of Columbia was the functional equivalent of a reprimand by the Supreme Court of New Jersey, when an attorney was involved in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, or misrepresentation in New Jersey in order to obtain illegal rents, pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2), the attorney was publicly censured.
|
|||||
| In re Zolensky, No. 05-BG-887,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation that an attorney be suspended as identical reciprocal discipline after the attorney was suspended in Tennessee was adopted, D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f). The attorney had not filed any opposition to the Board's report and recommendation.
|
|||||
| Kreuzer v. George Washington Univ., Nos. 04-CV-1157, 04-CV-1383, 05-CV-42,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A landowner's judicial admissions that an adjacent owner's building was on its own property, on which a party wall supported the landowner's building, barred trespass claims, and his blockbusting claim, under D.C. Code § 2-1402.22, was time-barred as principal acts between them were before the limitations period and no later acts were blockbusting.
|
|||||
| Stewart-Veal v. District of Columbia, No. 05-CV-342,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An alleged injured party's amended negligence complaint claiming alleged negligent hiring, training, and supervision of police officers should not have been dismissed on statute of limitation grounds, but relation back, under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 15(c), did not apply, as intentional tort claims in a first complaint did not survive dismissal.
|
|||||
| Crescent Props. v. Inabinet, No. 03-CV-1449,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Ruling in favor of tenant in District of Columbia Residential Drug-Related Evictions Act of 1990 proceeding was affirmed. While property management company established tenant's apartment had been a drug haven in the past, it failed to establish the apartment was a current drug haven, as was required by D.C. Code § 42-3602.
|
|||||
| In re Miller, No. 05-BG-884,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney engaged in misconduct as the co-trustee of an estate in Florida by failing to deposit insurance proceeds into a segregated escrow account, and by failing to insure that a co-trustee properly used the trust funds, the attorney violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a), and was suspended for six months as reciprocal discipline.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
