 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chatterjee v. Mid Atl. Reg'l Council of Carpenters, Nos. 06-AA-799 and 07-AA-7,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a worker's testimony, credited by the ALJ, fairly called into question the accuracy of the certificate of service, the Office of Administrative Hearings had to engage in a factual inquiry to establish whether the determination letter was mailed on or about the dated indicated for purposes of D.C. Code § 51-111(b).
|
|||||
| Cormier v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., Nos. 06-CV-1370 & 06-CV-1371,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court erred at summary judgment because the court disregarded a declaration by an expert for a property owner that was not notarized, but should have given the owner time to have the declaration notarized. The court also erred because the evidence of damages, viewed favorably to the owner, was sufficient to preclude summary judgment.
|
|||||
| George Washington Univ. v. Bier, No. 05-CV-775,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because nothing establishing that a university and a doctor were joint tortfeasors, and, as previously determined by the appellate court in regard to a cross-claim for contribution, the doctor would be prejudiced by the belated claim for contribution, summary judgment was properly granted in favor of the doctor.
|
|||||
| In re Brown, No. 07-BG-81,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred as reciprocal discipline for his disbarment in Maryland based on the misappropriation of client funds; neither Bar Counsel nor the attorney opposed identical reciprocal discipline and intentional or reckless misappropriation of funds was by itself a ground for disbarment in the District of Columbia.
|
|||||
| Jones v. United States, No. 06-CF-242,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction was affirmed because defendant did not show a reasonable probability that, but for an unobjected to pre-deliberation instruction, which should not have been given as it was one-sidedly weighted toward the goal of agreement on a verdict, and the anti-deadlock charge the judge gave, the result of the proceeding would have been different.
|
|||||
| Shewarega v. Yegzaw, No. 06-CT-969,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Criminal contempt conviction for willfully disobeying a civil protection order issued under the District of Columbia Intrafamily Offenses Act, D.C. Code § 16-1001 et seq., was remanded for the court to reconsider its verdict after an assessment of the record because the court's determination rested on factual findings that were clearly erroneous.
|
|||||
| Otts v. United States, Nos. 04-CF-1139 and 06-CO-1040,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 24, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Otts v. United States, Nos. 04-CF-1139 & 06-CO-1040,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for controlled substance offenses was affirmed because, under the plain error standard of review, the fairness, integrity, and public reputation of defendant's trial with regard to defendant's right to confrontation under the Sixth Amendment were not undermined by the introduction of a chemist's reports when the chemist did not testify.
|
|||||
| Perrow v. United States, No. 06-CO-796,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, April 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was proper to deny defendant's motion for resentencing, which alleged that the prosecutor breached a plea agreement by urging a sentence that was more than what the parties agreed upon, because the prosecutor's allocution strictly complied with the terms of the agreement. There was no intent to subvert the commitment made in the agreement.
|
|||||
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. |
