 |
|
 |
|
|
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 O'Toole, No. 04-BG-245,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the attorney was disciplined in Maryland for 30 days for willfully failing to file federal and state income tax returns for three years, and that conduct constituted misconduct in the District of Columbia, a reciprocal 30-day suspension, pursuant to D.C. Bar XI, ¿ 11(f)(2), from his practice of law in the District of Columbia was warranted.
|
|||||
| Simpson v. United States, No. 02-CF-23,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although references to one witness's early failures to implicate defendant as due to fear were too prejudicial, error was harmless. Confrontation right was not violated by impeaching another inconsistent witness with earlier inculpating grand jury testimony, or by commenting on it later, as defendant had every opportunity to cross-examine as well.
|
|||||
| District of Columbia v. Jackson, No. 03-CV-1366,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Prevailing party in a wrongful death and survival action was barred from recovering attorneys' fees from District of Columbia under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 54(d)(2)(B) because she failed to move for them within 14 days of entry of judgment in her favor or to seek an extension of time to file.
|
|||||
| In re Kaufman, No. 05-BG-396,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.1(b), D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(d), and D.C. Bar R. XI, ¿ 2(b)(3) by failing to respond to an investigation conducted by Bar Counsel with regard to a disciplinary complaint received against the attorney, the attorney was publicly censured.
|
|||||
| In re Ventriglia, No. 04-BG-248,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a reciprocal discipline case, an attorney's two-year suspension from the practice of law was stayed, and he was placed on two years of unsupervised probation due to his failure to file federal and state income tax returns as he was in the State of North Carolina.
|
|||||
| Jeffrey v. United States, Nos. 01-CF-932 & 04-CO-252,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence that defendant had a gun in his car, located 151 feet and 7 inches from the properly line of the elementary school, was sufficient to support his conviction for carrying a pistol without a license in a gun-free zone under D.C. Code Ann. ¿ 22-4502.01 (2001), it was not necessary that the gun be within 1000 feet of the building itself.
|
|||||
| Marboah v. Ackerman, Nos. 03-CV-1378, 03-CV-1413, and 03-CV-1414,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment grant to the law firm and lawyer on client's legal malpractice claim against them was proper; they could not be found liable even if they acted negligently in representing him on his workers' compensation claim, as he was ineligible for such benefits because he was an illegal alien, which was a fact he had fraudulently concealed.
|
|||||
| Scott v. United States, No. 04-CM-481,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's motion to suppress was properly denied because the officers, who observed defendant urinating on the front bumper of a broken down parked van, had probable cause to arrest him for disorderly conduct and defacing public property and thus, the search incident to that arrest was reasonable within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Williams v. United States, No. 03-CO-321,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court's detailed oral findings in support of its ruling denying defendant's D.C. Code Ann. ¿ 23-110 (2001) motion to vacate, which the trial court made part of the transcript of the proceedings by entering the ruling on the docket, was sufficient to the requirements of law, and, thus, his conviction on two criminal counts was affirmed.
|
|||||
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. |
