 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Drayton v. United States, No. 03-CM-658,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the victim's statements occurred after officers secured the scene and during investigation of the crime, the statements were testimonial. As victim was unavailable for cross-examination, defendant's Confrontation Clause rights were violated when officer was allowed to recount the statements. Plain error was prejudicial. New trial was ordered.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Murrell, No. 03-PR-1276, No. 04-PR-298,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court abused its discretion by awarding a co-representative $ 59,242.50 in additional compensation for alleged legal research, because a law firm had represented the decedent's estate as to the malpractice litigation and the trial judge never considered the statutory factors set forth in D.C. Code Ann. § 20-753(b) (2001).
|
|||||
| In re Ifill, Nos. 02-BG-1264 and 03-BG-1487,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a reciprocal disciplinary matter arising from the State of Maryland, an attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia as a result of taking $ 21,000 from an estate account by writing three checks without authorization and depositing that money in his personal bank account in violation of numerous disciplinary rules.
|
|||||
| In re Thyden, No. 02-BG-91,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Disciplinary board's finding that an attorney violated D.C. Bar. R. 1.4 and 8.4 by filing actions on behalf of a client without informing the client was supported by the evidence, and the appellate court found that a 30-day suspension was the proper sanction for the attorney's violations.
|
|||||
| In re Tillerson, No. 96-BG-271,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's conviction for first-degree theft was crime that involved moral turpitude per se and appropriate sanction was disbarment. Since attorney did not except to recommendation by board on professional responsibility that he be disbarred, district's highest court gave that recommendation heightened deference and disbarred attorney.
|
|||||
| Metts v. United States, Nos. 97-CF-271 and 03-CO-849,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in denying, without a hearing, defendant's D.C. Code Ann. § 23-110 (2001) motion to vacate, set aside, or correct his sentence on various grounds as the motion consisted of vague and conclusory allegations, palpably incredible claims, or allegations that would not merit relief even if they were considered to be true.
|
|||||
| Ramirez v. United States, No. 00-CF-792,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of assault with a dangerous weapon was affirmed; the trial court did not err by failing to sua sponte conduct a voir dire of an interpreter after the interpreter made several mistakes as the mistakes were minor and the interpreter had already been certified pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. § 2-1901(5).
|
|||||
| Sawyer Prop. Mgmt. of Md., Inc. v. D.C. Rental Hous. Comm'n, No. 02-AA-1362,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Rental housing commission did not err in concluding apartment property manager lost its claimed rent ceiling adjustments by failing to perfect them in time; it did not file and serve the required certificate of election within the required 30 days of the date it was first eligible for adjustments as mandated by D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 14, § 4204.10.
|
|||||
| Williams v. United States, No. 03-CF-1177,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 16, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not commit plain error in refusing to admit into evidence a pocketknife that was in victim's pocket when defendant shot him; victim was laborer who used the knife for work, so he did not arm himself with the knife, and he never brandished it, so the knife's probative value was not so obvious that refusal to admit it was plain error.
|
|||||
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. |
