 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| District of Columbia v. Gould, No. 03-CV-526,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 17, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court reversed a judgment ruling that a class of retired disabled police officers was entitled to a five percent base retention differential (BRD). Settlement clearly stated that only officers who had completed 20 years' service were entitled to BRD.
|
|||||
| Felicity'S, Inc. v. D.C. Bd. of Appeals & Review, No. 02-AA-58,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 17, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia Board of Appeals and Review properly dismissed cultural center's appeal of license denial because of its counsel's failure to file a brief. Counsel's misunderstandings about procedure did not affect order clearly requiring brief.
|
|||||
| In re Butterfield, No. 03-BG-578,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 17, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's conduct, in not performing a conflicts check and failing to obtain written consents and in not withdrawing once he learned of a conflict caused by his representation of a new client, warranted a 30-day suspension from the practice of law.
|
|||||
| In re M.O.R., No. 03-FS-980,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 17, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia trial court was without power to extend juvenile's term of probation without a recommendation to that effect from the director of the district's social services department. Therefore, juvenile was entitled to mandamus relief.
|
|||||
| Pinkney v. United States, Nos. 98-CF-131 and 01-CO-899,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 17, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While it was not error for trial court to disqualify defendant's chosen counsel because counsel represented potential prosecution witness, it was abuse of discretion to refuse to reinstate counsel without inquiring whether conflict still existed.
|
|||||
| Braxton v. United States, No. 99-CF-638,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in dismissing juror who refused to follow the trial court's jury instruction to evaluate the testimony of a police officer the same as any other evidence in the case; thus, defendant's convictions were affirmed.
|
|||||
| In re Abrahamson, No. 01-BG-887,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Receiving compensation with intent to defeat purposes of United States Department of Housing and Urban Development was not moral turpitude crime per se or on facts, but a lawyer who pled guilty to it was suspended from practice of law for six months.
|
|||||
| In re Brown, No. 97-BG-327,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court adopted Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation that attorney be suspended for one year, as Board's report finding he committed a "serious crime" for disciplinary purposes and suspension suggestion was unchallenged.
|
|||||
| United States v. Little, No. 03-CO-452,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 24, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inmate serving a murder sentence was entitled to new trial based on post-conviction showing that interrogation in which he made admissions was custodial in nature, and that counsel was ineffective in failing to move to suppress them.
|
|||||
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. |
