 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Murray v. Goodwin, No. 02-CV-176,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 1, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court reversed trial court's judgment in favor of person who was sued by two property owners because judgment was based on finding that court was bound by judgment entered in another action involving same parties, which was later reversed.
|
|||||
| Rest. Equip. & Supply Depot, Inc. v. Gutierrez, No. 01-CV-774,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 1, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Corporation did not have good cause for not answering plaintiffs' complaint within 10 days of date on which trial court denied its motion to dismiss, and the court did not abuse its discretion by entering default or denying motion to vacate default.
|
|||||
| Cosio v. United States, Nos. 98-CF-1906 and 02-CO-1453,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Counsel was not constitutionally deficient in failing to investigate defendant's co-workers as sources of information regarding his relationship with alleged child victim. Exclusion of proffered expert did not deny confrontation rights.
|
|||||
| Hernandez v. United States, No. 03-CF-175,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge erred in denying request to instruct jury on self-defense where, inter alia, expert opined from record that wounds could have been inflicted by one lying on ground and stabbing upwards and evidence showed defendant had debris on back.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. District of Columbia, No. 03-CT-1016,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Jeopardy did not attach in a hearing that led to suppression of marijuana seized after defendant's arrest for indecent exposure; an appellate court lacked jurisdiction to consider whether that collaterally estopped the indecent exposure prosecution.
|
|||||
| Jones v. United States, No. 01-CF-1458,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial judge erred in violation of Sixth Amendment in not allowing defendant to cross-examine witness in order to show officer's bias. However, after considering strength of government's case and evidence, the error was found to be harmless.
|
|||||
| McCrimmon v. United States, Nos. 95-CF-802, 98-CO-1259, & 99-CO-1654,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in denying defendant's motion claiming ineffectiveness of trial counsel based on conflict of interest because the evidence was inconclusive on the issue of defense counsel's belief regarding the conflict of interest.
|
|||||
| Wash. Post v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 03-AA-739,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 8, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia Department of Employment Services did not err in affirming compensation order finding the claimant temporarily partially disabled because the claimant's allergic condition arose out of and was causally related to her employment.
|
|||||
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. |
