 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brown v. United States, Nos. 03-CF-200 & 04-CO-1458,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions were reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial because the error under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment in preventing counsel from asking a witness about threats a person attending the trial may have made against the witness, both before and during trial, was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| District of Columbia v. Fitzgerald, No. 05-CT-1428,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In case in which District of Columbia sought review of defendant's allegedly unauthorized sentence for DUI, while it was noted that D.C. Code § 11-721(a)(1) gave Court of Appeals jurisdiction of appeals from all final orders and judgments of Superior Court, District was permitted to have appellate brief considered as petition for writ of mandamus.
|
|||||
| Hegwood v. Chinatown CVS, Inc. , No. 07-AA-577,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A decision finding that a claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits under D.C. Code § 51-110 for engaging in gross misconduct was reversed on appeal as there was no evidence that she violated any written rule of the employer regarding allowing others to use her discount card that amounted to gross misconduct.
|
|||||
| In re Fountain, No. 07-BG-377,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As there was a rebuttable presumption favoring the nearly automatic imposition of identical reciprocal discipline, there was nothing to indicate that reciprocal discipline was inappropriate, and there was no exception by the parties, the court accepted the recommendation of disbarment under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11.
|
|||||
| In re Hilson, No. 07-BG-413,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: After an attorney had been indefinitely suspended in Massachusetts under Mass. Sup. Jud. Ct. R. 4:01, § 18(2)(b) for dishonestly converting funds he was required to hold in trust, substantially different reciprocal discipline of disbarment under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 was imposed based on a finding of an intentional conversion of client funds.
|
|||||
| In re Hoover-Hankerson, No. 04-BG-838,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney's conviction of conspiracy to defraud the United States was inherently a crime of moral turpitude, D.C. Code § 11-2503(a) mandated her disbarment.
|
|||||
| In re Landfield, No. 04-BG-1527,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for six months as he was sanctioned for a net of six months for four violations of the New Jersey Rules of Professional Conduct, and his failure to file any exception to the Board's reports was treated as a concession that a reciprocal suspension was warranted.
|
|||||
| In re Mitrano, No. 07-BG-656,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was disbarred as a result of misappropriating a government refund check belonging to his client and, thus, violated D.C. Bd. Prof. Resp. R. 8.4(b), 8.4(c), 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 1.15(c), 1.19(a), and 1.4(a) by failing to inform the client of the receipt of the check and lacking a good faith belief that he was entitled to its entirety.
|
|||||
| In re Sawyer, No. 07-BG-886,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The recommendation by the District of Columbia Board of Professional Responsibility of reciprocal discipline for an attorney who had been suspended in another state was adopted because a three-year suspension was within the range of sanctions that would be imposed in the District of Columbia for a violation of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b).
|
|||||
| In re Steinberg, No. 06-BG-1393,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 17, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Following attorney's disbarment in Maryland for, inter alia, serious and protracted acts of neglect during his representation of two clients in separate probate and bankruptcy matters, reciprocal discipline of disbarment was imposed in the District of Columbia (D.C.) under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 as such actions constituted misconduct in D.C. as well.
|
|||||
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. |
