 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burwell v. United States, No. 05-CM-98,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of unlawful possession of marijuana, D.C. Code § 48-904.01(d), was affirmed; marijuana was found all over the car defendant was operating and the smell of marijuana suggested that the occupants had been smoking it recently or were preparing to do so, and were in joint constructive possession of it.
|
|||||
| Hawkins v. United States, No. 04-CF-57,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Officers had an objective reason to believe defendant's license plate did not comply with the applicable regulations because it was not "securely fastened" to his vehicle pursuant to D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 18, § 422.4; the police therefore were authorized to investigate the matter by initiating a traffic stop. Defendant's convictions were affirmed.
|
|||||
| In re Cho, No. 05-BG-36,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia as reciprocal discipline in conformity with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c) because the attorney was previously disbarred from the practice of law in the State of Maryland and had sufficient notice of the proceeding.
|
|||||
| In re Rogers, No. 04-BG-1444,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred from the practice of law because he misappropriated funds from a client. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals determined that it could not order unconditional restitution because D.C. Bar R. XI, § 3(b) prevented it from ordering the attorney to pay restitution other than as a condition of probation or of reinstatement.
|
|||||
| Odemns v. United States, No. 03-CF-447,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A detective's testimony regarding statements by a victim of a different armed robbery committed by defendant could not be admitted under the hearsay exception for spontaneous exclamations or excited utterances, as the adjectives used by the detective in his description of the victim's state of mind did not establish the element of spontaneity.
|
|||||
| Swinton v. United States, No. 03-CF-364,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence of "serious bodily injury" within the meaning of D.C. Code § 22-404.01(a) was insufficient to support defendant's conviction; even assuming that the victim's bruises qualified as disfiguring, there was a dearth of evidence that her disfigurement was "protracted and obvious." There was also insufficient evidence of "extreme physical pain."
|
|||||
| Williams v. District of Columbia, No. 03-CV-1271,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the District of Columbia against an insurance company receiver as an agreement between the insurance company and the District was void ab initio under 31 U.S.C.S. § 1341(a)(1)(B), and the company was constructively notified that officials were never authorized to bind the District to the agreement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
