 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ford v. United States, No. 98-CF-119,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 12, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's petition for rehearing was denied as the trial court's reasonable efforts instruction was not coercive; it simply reminded the jurors to abide by their sworn oath and to consider only the evidence.
|
|||||
| Morten v. United States, Nos. 97-CF-1263, 02-CO-54, 97-CF-1393, 97-CF-1406, 97-CF-1557,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A court's ruling admitting hearsay statements of nontestifying codefendants as declarations against penal interest violated murder defendants' Sixth Amendment rights and was not harmless, it was error of constitutional magnitude requiring reversal.
|
|||||
| Murray v. United States, Nos. 02-CF-52, 02-CF-194, 02-CF-391,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 12, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although prosecutor went astray when he argued that an acquittal for kidnapping while armed would somehow make witnesses' act of testifying in fear nugatory, impropriety did not require reversal under the nonconstitutional harmless error doctrine.
|
|||||
| Sharp v. Ward, Case No. 01ca2184,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, August 13, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A lessor could not shift a leased car's primary coverage to a lessee's policy providing excess coverage because (1) D.C. Code § 31-2401 et seq. (2004) required the lessor to provide primary coverage, (2) the lessee did not waive this coverage, (3) the lessee could not unilaterally change his policy, and (4) shifting coverage breached public policy.
|
|||||
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. |
