 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| CCD-SAT, Inc. v. Pratt, No. 07-CV-1164,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 28, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: It was improper to quiet title to property in favor of a tax sale purchaser because there was no evidence that a corporation was provided with notice of the sale of the property pursuant to D.C. Code ¿ 47-1303.02(b)(1). As a result, the trial court was unable to determine whether the District of Columbia complied with the statute.
|
|||||
| In re Lickstein, Nos. 08-BG-336 & 08-BG-337,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 28, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Redman v. Potomac Place Assocs., LLC, Nos. 07-CV-335 & 07-CV-1255,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 28, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in a possession action was properly entered for the owner of an apartment building, which was converting the building from rental units to condominiums, because when an amendment protecting disabled tenants took effect, the tenant was not then a tenant subject to the prohibition on eviction within the meaning of D.C. Code ¿ 42-3402.08.
|
|||||
| Wright-Taylor v. Howard Univ. Hosp., No. 07-AA-1173,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 28, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The dismissal of a claimant's unemployment compensation appeal as untimely, under D.C. Code ¿ 51-111(b) (2001), was reversed because (1) regulations governing the procedures for timely filing an appeal notice were rule-based and not statutory, and (2) the Office of Administrative Hearings gave the claimant ambiguous notice about the appeal process.
|
|||||
| High v. United States, No. 03-CF-1397,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Jones v. United States, No. 06-CF-1000,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Pearline Peart v. D.C. Hous. Auth., No. 07-CV-1003,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 4, 2009, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
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. |
