 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Pardue v. Ctr. City Consortium Schs., Inc., Civil Action No.: 02-5459,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, July 29, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Principal's race discrimination claim against her former employer, a church, was subject to summary judgment for lack of subject matter jurisdiction under the ministerial exception because the principal's position was important to the spiritual and pastoral mission of the church and her primary duties consisted of teaching and spreading the faith.
|
|||||
| Cass v. District of Columbia, No. 99-CT-969,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile defendant convicted of possession of alcohol by a minor, a violation of the District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Act, could only be punished by a civil fine and the suspension of his driving privileges.
|
|||||
| Hammond v. Quick, No. 02-CV-1040,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An inmate's civil rights suit against the District of Columbia Board of Parole Chair in her individual capacity was properly dismissed based on judicial immunity because the Chair's action in recommending set-off date was part of her official duties.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Greene, No. 02-PR-450,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An oral hearing was not required on a former successor limited conservator's motion for reconsideration of her removal from her position because the motion could have, but did not, state the conservator's reasons for challenging the removal.
|
|||||
| In re Starnes, No. 02-BG-855,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney who agreed to represent clients before being admitted to the bar and then neglected and abandoned their matters, eventually accepting government employment without notifying his clients, was suspended from the practice of law for six months.
|
|||||
| Pannell v. District of Columbia, No. 00-CV-1591,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In suit alleging District of Columbia's negligent supervision led to attack on inmate by fellow inmates, his expert's failure to support his opinion that District violated applicable standard of care justified grant of summary judgment to District.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Hart, No. 01-CV-390,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Collateral estoppel barred relitigating hearing examiner's decision that there was no direct landlord-tenant relationship between subtenants and landlord. Collateral estoppel did not bar claims based on subtenancy even though lease barred subletting.
|
|||||
| Cropp v. Williams, Civil Action No. 03ca4569,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, August 1, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Inspector General Qualifications Amendment Act, D.C. Code Ann. ¿ 2-302.08(a)(1)(D-i), would require the incumbent inspector general for the district to vacate his position and thereby violated separation of powers; mayor had power to select and remove inspector general, and city council could change qualifications but could not remove incumbent.
|
|||||
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. |
