 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ball v. Arthur Winn Gen. P'shp/S. Hills Apts., No. 05-CV-259,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment of possession in favor of the landlord was reversed because the trial judge's instructions did not focus the jury, in accordance with applicable judicial precedent, on landlord's burden to prove that any drug activity for which the tenant was responsible continued at the time of the trial, as required by language in D.C. Code § 42-3602.
|
|||||
| Calhoun v. Wackenhut Servs., No. 05-AA-481,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings erred by finding that an appeal by an applicant for unemployment benefits was not timely filed under D.C. Code § 51-111(b), because the appeal was made by fax without a hard copy, as the agency failed to recognize the ambiguity created by misleading advice to the applicant about appeal rights.
|
|||||
| Copeland v. Cohen, No. 04-CV-33,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of property owners in a breach of contract action involving an option to purchase the property. Tenant's affidavit stating his attempts to timely exercise the option were thwarted by the owners created a genuine issue of fact as to the issue of timeliness that had to be resolved in a trial.
|
|||||
| In re Klein, No. 03-BG-761,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney's objection to public censure as a reciprocal sanction to the public reprimand imposed in Maryland for his violation of Md. R. Prof. Conduct 1.4 failed. Public censure under the District of Columbia's attorney discipline system was the lowest possible sanction and was the equivalent of Maryland's public reprimand.
|
|||||
| In re Long, No. 04-BG-883,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, who admitted incompetence in representing client's interest and engaging in conflict of interest without full disclosure, was suspended from practice for thirty days, stayed in favor of probation after appellate court found attorney remained unblemished for 20 years, violation occurred in personal context and was not likely to recur.
|
|||||
| Osborne v. Howard Univ. Physicians, Inc., Nos. 04-CV-951 & 04-CV-1120,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly awarded judgment in favor of a university faculty practice plan administrator as a professor's execution of a new employment agreement with the university for which he was a professor was not the product of duress. Further, under the agreement's terms, the professor waived his breach of contract claim against the administrator.
|
|||||
| Wilson-Bey v. United States, Nos. 01-CF-293 and 01-CF-633,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 20, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Instruction regarding intent for first-degree premeditated murder while armed (D.C. Code §§ 22-2101, -4502) was erroneous; in any prosecution for premeditated murder, whether defendant was charged as principal or as an aider or abettor, government had to prove all elements of the offense, including premeditation, deliberation, and intent to kill.
|
|||||
| Indus. Bank, N.A. v. Saunders, Civil Action No. 06-0000001,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, July 24, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
