 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| In re Schwartz, No. 06-BG-1066,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for 18 months in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding because his actions were misconduct under D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) and there was a presumption under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f) that identical reciprocal discipline was to be nearly automatic in such circumstances.
|
|||||
| Landise v. Mauro, No. 04-CV-499,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appeal from an order that an attorney make an additional deposit into the court registry, pursuant to D.C. Code § 15-703(b), to cover the disputed costs of an audit, was dismissed because the appeal was not final and was not appealable either under the collateral order doctrine or as an injunction.
|
|||||
| Poole v. United States, No. 05-CM-1424,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 31, 2007 Decided * * This opinion was originally issued in unpublished form. It is now being published upon grant of appellee's motion requesting publication pursuant to D.C. App. R. 36 c.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for criminal abuse of a vulnerable adult in violation of D.C. Code §§ 22-932, 22-933, and 22-936(a). The trial court also did not abuse its discretion under the Sixth Amendment in refusing to allow defendant to recall the victim at trial for further cross-examination.
|
|||||
| Sobelsohn v. Am. Rental Mgmt. Co., No. 03-CV-1441,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, May 31, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial because the trial court too narrowly construed the legal doctrines upon which a tenant might have established a management company's liability under a residential lease. The crucial inquiry should have been into the reasonableness in expectations and performance on both sides.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
