 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| District of Columbia v. Zukerberg, No. 03-CV-729,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A jury verdict in favor of a guardian ad litem, on behalf of a minor, was upheld on appeal because a sufficient causal link was established that indicated that the District of Columbia violated the national standard of care with regard to a diving board at a public pool and that the minor was injured by the overly wobbly board.
|
|||||
| Hammond v. United States, No. 97-CF-624, No. 97-CF-791,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In spite of a delay of 54 months between indictment and trial, defendants were not deprived of their constitutional right to a speedy trial; while the delay was extremely lengthy, the reasons for the delay were overwhelmingly justified or neutral, with little delay that could be characterized as significant, and the charges were complex.
|
|||||
| In re E.T.A., No. 02-FS-774,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a mother's counsel did present a record for appeal and did not utilize remedies in D.C. Ct. App. R. 10(c), (d) for the unavailability of a transcript, counsel were unable to, and did not, cite to the record as required by D.C. App. R. 28(e); consequently, the trial court's finding of neglect was affirmed.
|
|||||
| In re Smith, No. 03-FM-501,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a patient had been released from her court-ordered hospital commitment and she was subsequently recommitted under a new order in separate proceedings, the lawfulness of the first commitment order was moot on appeal under D.C. Code Ann. § 21-548(a).
|
|||||
| New Econ. Capital, LLC v. New Mkts. Capital Group, No. 04-CV-233,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Failure of defendants in contract action to attach statement of facts as to which there was no dispute to its summary judgment, as required by D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 12-I(k), did not require denial of summary judgment where there was simply no evidence indicating existence of oral agreement.
|
|||||
| Howard Univ. Hosp. v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 03-AA-740,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an employee's latex allergy precluded her return to work, an ALJ and the hospital incorrectly assumed that an employee was not temporarily totally disabled if all her latex-related symptoms had truly abated; the matter was remanded to determine if the holding in Washington Post truly disposed of the case.
|
|||||
| Williams v. United States, No. 03-CF-569,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 18, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 16(a) did not require the government to disclose the names of its witnesses before trial, there was no Brady violation; in any event, the evidence was sufficient to find defendant guilty of aiding and abetting others in a shooting.
|
|||||
| United States v. Graves, Case No. F 1812-82, F 4914-81,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION - SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BRANCH, August 24, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was not entitled to a stay of an order directing that he be released from a hospital to the custody of the United States Marshals Service to begin serving his sentence, as corrected, because he did not show irreparable injury. However, the court granted a temporary stay of the denial to permit defendant to seek a permanent stay on appeal.
|
|||||
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. |
