 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Byrd v. Jackson, No. 04-CV-940,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act applied to appellant, who had represented himself to a decedent as a "foreclosure avoidance specialist." The Act did not require that he enter a formal contractual relationship or receive money for his services, if he did not have the intent to sell his services as advertised or offered.
|
|||||
| Darrow v. Dillingham & Murphy, LLP, No. 03-CV-1266,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a former employee's constructive termination claim against her employer was reversed because she adequately alleged such a claim that fell within an exception to the at-will employment doctrine. However, the dismissal of her intentional infliction of emotional distress claim was affirmed because she failed to state such a claim.
|
|||||
| Howard v. United States, No. 05-CM-221,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fact defendant was flagging and waving down cars in high crime area and quickly walked away from officer and discovery of ziplock bags where defendant had been standing provided probable cause to arrest defendant. Because defendant never challenged chemist's analysis and results, chemist's testimony was not required under D.C. Code § 48-905.06.
|
|||||
| In re Blackburn, No. 04-BG-788,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 6, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When the Board on Professional Responsibility made many attempts to contact an lawyer, who had not informed the bar of his new address as required by D.C. Bar R. II, § 2(1), he had had sufficient notice of a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c). As he had not excepted to the disbarment recommendation, he was disbarred.
|
|||||
| Banks v. United States, Nos. 04-CF-1511, 04-CF-1512,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence was sufficient to support defendants' convictions of felony receipt of stolen property, D.C. Code § 22-3232(a), 22-3232(c)(1), as the testimony of a van's owner and an officer allowed the jury to find that the stolen vehicle and the van defendants occupied were the same. One defendant was entitled to a lesser-included offense instruction.
|
|||||
| Brin v. S.E.W. Investors, No. 02-CV-649,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's entry of judgment for a building owner was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings because the appellate court could not determine when an employee's action against the owner for injuries allegedly incurred as a result of bad air quality commenced to run and whether it was time-barred by D.C. Code § 12-301(8).
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Grealis, NO. 03-PR-963, NO. 03-PR-965, NO. 04-PR-169,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Lower court orders requiring three attorneys to repay fees privately negotiated and paid from personal funds in three separate guardianship and/or conservatorship proceedings were reversed because no statutory basis existed under D.C. Code § 21-2060 and D.C. Super. Ct. R. Prob. Div. 308 for requiring court approval.
|
|||||
| In re Meaden, No. 00-BG-1059,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 13, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended for three years because he failed to (1) show that the use of the facts surrounding his expunged offenses violated his due process rights, (2) show that identical discipline was not to be imposed under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c)(4), or (3) meet the substantially different discipline exception under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c)(4).
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
