 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Eckert v. D.C. Police & Firefighters' Ret. & Relief Bd., No 05-AA-1068,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Case was remanded for an administrative board to review the evidence presented, and make findings of fact as to whether a police officer suffered from psychological conditions that affected his percentage of disability because the board should have realized during a disability hearing that the officer's psychological issues were contested.
|
|||||
| Estate of Patterson v. Sharek, No. 05-CV-1523,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An estate held a portion of a disputed property by adverse possession as to a brick-walled enclosure on the property the estate's predecessor-in-interest built. The estate's trustees also retained a right to park in the remaining right-of-way area provided they could do so without unreasonably interfering with the property owners' right-of-way.
|
|||||
| In re Patel, No. 06-BG-1187,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of six months in a substantially different reciprocal discipline pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f)(2), because the usual sanction in the District of Columbia for negligent misappropriation, even with related violations, was a six-month suspension.
|
|||||
| In re Zukoff, No. 06-BG-1068,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was publicly censured in a disciplinary action because the deference by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals to the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation was heightened under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2) as no party opposed the recommendation, and the court found substantial support in the record.
|
|||||
| Jackson v. United States, No. 05-CM-1256,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Right to confrontation was not violated by admission into evidence of certified copies of superior court docket entries and Notice to Return to Court without testimony from court clerk who created records, because documents were not "testimonial" statements; documents were created to satisfy administrative functions necessary to operation of court.
|
|||||
| Levelle, Inc. v. D.C. Alcoholic Bev. Control Bd., No. 05-AA-765,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Restaurant operator's liquor license was revoked, under D.C. Code §§ 25-801, 25-823, and 25-826, because substantial evidence supported the administrative finding that an establishment was used for an unlawful or disorderly purpose, in violation of D.C. Code § 25-823(2), and the Police Chief's request for revocation, under D.C. Code § 25-827(a).
|
|||||
| Peay v. United States, No. 05-CF-898,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Even if court found variance in indictment, defendant failed to demonstrate prejudice that would have warranted reversal; defendant was on notice government was presenting evidence of two collisions. Although trial court erred in allowing constructive amendment when it allowed jury to consider felony grade of property offense, error was not plain.
|
|||||
| Solid Rock Church v. Friendship Pub. Charter Sch., Inc., No. 04-CV-1531,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Church could not bring an adverse possession action against a charter school because the statute of limitations governing adverse possession did not run against the District of the Columbia, which transferred the disputed property to the school by deed, in that the District owned the disputed property as part of a public school.
|
|||||
| Watson v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., No. 06-CV-232,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 17, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employee's complaint for reinstatement to his former position, from which he voluntarily resigned, was dismissed because it was time-barred under D.C. Code §§ 2-223.03 and 2-1403.16, and his failure to initiate a grievance process within 15 days after he understood that the employer would not reinstate him was fatal to his tolling argument.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
