 |
|
 |
|
|
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 T.S., No. 99-FS-1228,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a person in need of supervision (PINS) proceeding, it was not error to deny a motion seeking order for department of human services to show cause that it should not be held in contempt for failure to feed because the PINS case had been dismissed.
|
|||||
| Nat'l Bank of Wash. v. Carr, No. 01-CV-1599,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where motions to revive judgment were received by trial court before 12-year limitations period for judgments expired, but they did not come to trial court's attention until after judgments expired, trial court could still rule on motions.
|
|||||
| Pope v. Romac Int'l, No. 02-CV-1180,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to an employment agency on an employee's breach of contract action; trial court failed to consider a claim that the agency took adverse actions in order to reduce unemployment contributions.
|
|||||
| Christopher v. Aguigui, No. 00-FM-976,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the legal effect of Maryland child support orders were not properly determined by a District of Columbia court and a mother sufficiently articulated a laches defense, the matter had to be remanded for further proceedings.
|
|||||
| E. Sav. Bank, FSB v. Pappas, No. 02-CV-676,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment to judgment creditors in a declaratory judgment action by a bank to determine the priority of secured interests in property; equitable subrogation applied to give priority to the bank's interest.
|
|||||
| Emry v. United States, Nos. 00-CM-154 & 01-CO-661,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant had alternatives to treat spasticity for her multiple sclerosis other than smoking marijuana, she did not meet her burden of proving a necessity defense.
|
|||||
| Hawthorne v. United States, No. 01-CF-1214,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly gave a lesser included offense jury instruction during defendant's trial; the trial court properly inquired whether the prosecutor desired such an instruction, and properly gave the instruction after the prosecution agreed.
|
|||||
| James v. United States, No. 96-CF-1359,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officer's prior experience, fact that defendant was stopped in a high crime area, and fact that defendant made a furtive gesture after he saw the officer, gave the officer reason to believe defendant concealed a weapon under seat of his car.
|
|||||
| Ali v. MedStar Health, Civil Action No. 99ca001753,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, August 15, 2003, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Physician's claim that hospital breached contract when it terminated his clinical privileges was dismissed on summary judgment because hospital was entitled to qualified immunity under the Health Care Quality Improvement Act, as its peer review actions complied with 42 U.S.C.S. ¿ 11112 and results of the review were reported to state authorities.
|
|||||
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. |
