 |
|
 |
|
|
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 A.G., Nos. 04-FS-451 and 04-FS-739,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Due process did not require clear and convincing evidence to award a child's permanent guardianship, under D.C. Code § 16-2388(f), and a preponderance of the evidence sufficed, as not all of a father's parental rights in the child were terminated. Not obtaining the child's opinion and not specifying the father's visitation did not abuse discretion.
|
|||||
| Pellerin v. 1915 16th St., 03-CV-1295,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a housing cooperative's suit with a deceased member's personal representative, a trial court had to find if the representative could first raise a claim in a joint pretrial statement, without amending her complaint, and had to say how it found attorney's fees awarded to the cooperative, which could only include fees to recover the member's fees.
|
|||||
| Tolu v. District of Columbia, No. 05-TX-92,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 1, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Taxpayers trying to invalidate a tax assessment not accounting for lead in their water pipes showed no exception to D.C. Code § 47-3307 (2001), barring suits to enjoin tax collecting, as it could not be said the government could not prevail, as it was not shown assessors knew of the lead on the assessment date, and the taxpayers had a legal remedy.
|
|||||
| Bobb v. Howard Univ. Hosp., No. 05-AA-768,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an unemployment insurance case, it was error to dismiss an administrative appeal as untimely filed under D.C. Code § 51-111(b). There was no proof that the agency's decision had been mailed to the claimant in 2004, as a certificate of service was unsigned and the record was devoid of any explanation of the agency's internal mailing process.
|
|||||
| Brown v. United States, No. 04-CO-1250,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A probation revocation, under D.C. Code § 24-304 (2001) plainly erred as defendant did not have due process as (1) he had no notice of certain violations, (2) his claim that he was homeless was not explored, nor were efforts to pay a fine or revocation alternatives examined, and (3) the trial court did not adequately state its basis for revocation.
|
|||||
| In re Willingham, No. 05-BG-44,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an attorney was disbarred in another jurisdiction and did not participate in reciprocal discipline proceedings, under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f), seeking disbarment, he was disbarred as a rebuttable presumption that the same discipline should be imposed was not rebutted, and no obvious miscarriage of justice would result from the same discipline.
|
|||||
| Kidd Int'l Home Care, Inc. v. Dallas, No. 05-AA-130,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an agency decision awarding an employee unemployment compensation was administratively affirmed due to the employer's failure to timely appeal, evidence that notice of the decision was sent to the employer was insufficient, under D.C. Code § 51-111(b) (2001), because that evidence consisted of the words "dated and mailed," followed by a date.
|
|||||
| Van Kuhn v. United States, Nos. 99-CF-1292, 00-CF-1513, 01-CO-145 & 05-CO-335,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel was not ineffective for arguing, over defendant's objection, a theory defendant did not testify to, as, after consulting defendant, defense strategy was up to counsel's judgment, under D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.2(a), and the theory was objectively reasonable. Severance was not required as defendants' defenses were not irreconcilable.
|
|||||
| Washkoviak v. Sallie Mae, No. 05-CV-63,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 8, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a suit against the Student Loan Marketing Association, facts outside of the complaint were wrongly considered in ruling on a motion under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) to find operations were moved outside the District of Columbia. Accepting the complaint as true, it was unclear Wisconsin law, rather than District of Columbia law, applied.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
