 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 1520 Assocs. v. 1520 Isherwood Coop., Inc., 01-ca-6107(RP), 03-ca-6511(RP),
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, July 1, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court found for a prior lienholder as the prior lienholder was not required to provide a subsequent lienholder with notice before judgment was entered for the prior lienholder in a case, under D.C. Code Ann. ¿ 47-1303.04(f)(1) (2001), as the subsequent lienholder was not a lienholder 30 days in advance of expiration of the redemption period.
|
|||||
| In re Steinberg, No. 05-BG-413,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 7, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where the attorney violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a), (b), 1.2(a), 1.3(a), (c), 1.4(a) and had been suspended on three previous occasions, the reviewing court adopted the recommended sanction of a 60-day suspension plus payment of restitution, which took into account the previous suspensions and was similar to the sanction in other cases.
|
|||||
| Jenkins v. United States, No. 98-CF-1789,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 7, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Overbroad definition of "serious bodily injury" in jury instruction mandated reversal of defendant's conviction of aggravated assault while armed in violation of D.C. Code Ann. ¿¿ 220504.1 and 22-3202 (1981), recodified as D.C. Code Ann. ¿¿ 22-404.01 and 22-4502 (2001), although evidence was sufficient to permit retrial.
|
|||||
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. |
