 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Furline v. Morrison, Nos. 04-CV-1029 & 04-CV-1114,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a retaliation and age discrimination suit brought under D.C. Code ¿ 2-1402.11(a), the employer and a supervisor were entitled to summary judgment as the suspended employee failed to claim that the suspension was made for ulterior motives other than her unapproved absences and no preference to younger workers was shown.
|
|||||
| Grayson v. United States, No. 06-CM-1419,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court's reference to a confession was clearly erroneous, the possibility existed that, in finding guilt, the trier of fact was swayed by erroneous factual matter; therefore, the case was remanded for the trial court to weigh the evidence in the record afresh and render a new verdict.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of McKenney, No. 05-PR-1271,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a court had jurisdiction under D.C. Code ¿ 20-107(a) and there was sufficient evidence that a personal representative made material misrepresentations that induced an heir to enter into the agreement to support the trial court's action in voiding the assignment and the quitclaim deed, the trial court properly rescinded the agreement.
|
|||||
| In re P.F., No. 05-FS-1467,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The government failed to show the complainant suffered the type of extreme physical pain necessary to support a finding of serious bodily injury under D.C. Code ¿ 22-404.01 since at no time after the attack did the complainant state she was in extreme pain, nor did she ever lose consciousness or claim to have felt faint as a result of her injuries.
|
|||||
| In re Stewart, No. 06-BG-859,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an original disciplinary matter before the appellate court, it found that claims that the attorney extensively violated appellate court's disciplinary rules in making unauthorized use of client funds was supported by substantial evidence and, pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, ¿ 9(g)(1), the Board's recommended sanction of disbarment was warranted.
|
|||||
| In re Turnbo, No. 07-BG-1360,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no miscarriage of justice in an attorney's disbarment in Maryland for commingling of funds and misuse of trust account funds, she was reciprocally disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia.
|
|||||
| Mahoney v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 06-AA-1368,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ, in denying claimant TTD benefits under D.C. Code ¿ 1-623.1 et seq., correctly stated he had burden to prove recurrence of symptoms of work injury before benefits could be reinstated. But, as another ALJ had advised him in prior hearing that employer had burden of proof, he was entitled to new hearing, as this advice could have prejudiced him.
|
|||||
| Richard v. McGreevy, Nos. 06-CV-1056, 06-CV-1057 & 07-PR-1411,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a personal representative had actual knowledge of appellants' claims against the estate, their failure to formally present their claims in the District of Columbia probate court before filing suit in a District of Columbia civil court based on those same claims did not bar the probate court action under D.C. Code ¿ 20-903(a) (2001).
|
|||||
| Washington v. D.C. Dep't of Pub. Works, No. 06-AA-315,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 24, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: D.C. Department of Public Works (DPW) charged property owner with violating D.C. Litter Control Act. As ALJ found that owner had not committed any violation, she erred in imposing fines against owner for her late response to DPW's citation, as D.C. Code ¿¿ 8-804(f) and -807 (c)(1) did not authorize fine in absence of substantive violation.
|
|||||
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. |
