 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cox v. United States, No. 04-CF-258,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in refusing to allow testimony from arresting officer regarding statement defendant made as to why a gun was in his car as the statement was not hearsay and was necessary under the Fed. R. Evid. 106 completeness rule, but as the error was deemed harmless, defendant's firearm and drug related convictions were affirmed.
|
|||||
| Gardner v. United States, No. 98-CF-609,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was incumbent upon defendant to demand that the jury see his transcript before rendering the verdict, and because he failed to do so, the trial court did not err in receiving the verdict. The prosecutor's comments did not warrant reversal under the "plain error" standard, in light of the government's abundant evidence.
|
|||||
| In re Jones, No. 99-BG-1291,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since bar counsel and board on professional responsibility agreed to recommend identical reciprocal discipline of disbarment for attorney who was disbarred in Pennsylvania, and since attorney took no exception to board's recommendation, court complied with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f), and imposed board's recommended sanction of disbarment.
|
|||||
| In re Lickstein, No. 05-BG-871,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There were sufficient facts to impose reciprocal discipline on an attorney pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 because the attorney was represented by counsel when he stipulated to the facts recited in the federal bankruptcy court's order, and the sanction was within the range of comparable sanctions that had been imposed for similar misconduct.
|
|||||
| In re Powell, No. 05-BG-785,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law for one-year period because, while subject to an interim suspension, he filed a sworn application for admission to the Bar of the United States District Court for the District of Colorado wherein he failed to disclose his admission to practice before the District of Columbia or his interim suspension.
|
|||||
| In re Tezak, No. 04-BG-1438,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Specific intent to defraud was essential element of attorney's conviction for wire fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1343, so it was crime of moral turpitude per se and required disbarment under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a); under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(1), court had to adopt board on professional responsibility's unopposed disbarment recommendation.
|
|||||
| Ward One Democrats, Inc. v. Woodland, No. 04-CV-208,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 4, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Act of incorporating under the name "Ward One Democrats" was insufficient to give a local political group exclusive rights to the use of the name, which generically described Democrats living in the "Ward One" voting district and which had not taken on any secondary meaning that could be afforded trademark or trade name protection.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
