 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Garcia v. United States, Nos. 00-CF-978 and 00-CF-979,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court's denial of defendant's motion to sever two offenses for trial pursuant to D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 14 was not an abuse of discretion, as defendant's statements that he wanted to testify regarding only one of the offenses but not as to the other was not sufficient to show prejudice.
|
|||||
| Hilliard v. Adecco USA, Inc., No. 05-AA-409,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A claimant's unemployment compensation claim was properly dismissed as untimely, as a claimant was required to file an administrative appeal within ten days of the mailing of the decision to the party's last known address, D.C. Code § 51-111(b). The claimant's failure to do so deprived the Office of Administrative Hearings of jurisdiction.
|
|||||
| In re Cervizzi, No. 05-BG-882,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The District of Columbia Court of Appeals accepted the Board on Professional Responsibility's unopposed recommendation to impose disbarment as reciprocal discipline on an attorney who failed to report that he was disbarred from the Maine Bar, pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(b), based on the rebuttal presumption of identical reciprocal discipline.
|
|||||
| In re Evans, No. 05-BG-538,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney who had a real estate practice and who also owned a title company that handled real estate loan closings violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a), (b), 1.7(b)(4), and 8.4(d) due to a conflict of interest in legally representing a borrower who wanted to close on a loan through the company; a six-month partly stayed suspension was imposed.
|
|||||
| In re Foshee, No. 05-BG-442,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney who was suspended from the practice of law in Virginia for a period of three years and subject to conditions upon reinstatement was suspended with reinstatement upon the same conditions, pursuant to D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 9(g)(1), as there was substantial evidence that supported imposition of identical reciprocal discipline.
|
|||||
| In re Kersey, No. 04-BG-469,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney who was disbarred from practicing law in New Hampshire failed to show an obvious miscarriage of justice that warranted a departure from the imposition of reciprocal discipline pursuant to D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 11(c); the presumption of imposing reciprocal discipline applied where the attorney did not respond in the proceedings.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
