 |
|
 |
|
|
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 Wright, Nos. 07-BG-73, 07-BG-74,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ivey v. District of Columbia, No. 05-CV-1029,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| N St. Follies, Ltd. P'shp v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, No. 07-AA-362,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Ramey v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 06-AA-743,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Snowder v. District of Columbia, No. 06-CV-959,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 5, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| 2461 Corp. v. D.C. Alcoholic Bev. Control Bd., No. 06-AA-523,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 12, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A finding by the Alcoholic Beverage Control Board for the District of Columbia that a restaurant made a substantial change in a restaurant's operations--a change in occupancy--without Board approval under D.C. Code ¿ 25-762(b)(1) was not supported by substantial evidence, and the Board's sanction against the restaurant was reversed.
|
|||||
| Bell v. United States, No. 01-CF-1131,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 12, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Right to present defense was not violated by failing to require convicted co-defendant to assert Fifth Amendment privilege, question by question; defendant intended to ask him to acknowledge that defendant was not involved and that he committed the crime. Testimony as to involvement would have incriminated him on retrial if appeal was successful.
|
|||||
| In re MacDonald, No. 07-BG-321,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 12, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney took no exceptions to the recommendation of the Board of Professional Responsibility that the court impose the functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline of disbarment that was imposed in another state, the presumption in favor of the Board's recommendation was even stronger, and it was adopted by the court.
|
|||||
| Kauffman v. Int'l Bhd. of Teamsters, No. 06-CV-1198,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, June 12, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an at-will employee alleged that his employer breached an agreement to provide him a housing allowance, the employer was entitled to summary judgment because the employee continued his employment after the employer's policy change for a reasonable period during which to consider his personal alternatives; a promissory estoppel claim failed.
|
|||||
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. |
