 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Deramus v. Donovan, Leisure, Newton & Irvine, No. 00-CV-1679,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment in favor of a law firm in a malpractice action was affirmed as the court did not err in failing to give the jury an instruction on the Mississippi statute of limitations which the jury requested during its deliberations. Further, the court did not error in disposing of the client's disclosure and certification claims on summary judgment.
|
|||||
| In re Fuchs, No. 04-BG-882,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Identical reciprocal discipline was imposed on attorney for his admitted violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 6068(c). His case did not fall within any of five exceptions to identical reciprocal discipline and delay in District of Columbia's consideration of discipline was due to attorney's violation of D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 11(b).
|
|||||
| In re Roth, No. 04-BG-372,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reciprocal discipline of disbarment was ordered for attorney who violated Florida Rules of Professional Conduct and was disbarred in the Florida. The attorney did not take exception to the discipline and the record supported the Board of Professional Responsibility's recommendation that identical discipline be imposed in the District of Columbia.
|
|||||
| In re Sobo, No. 05-BG-473,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was reciprocally suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of time because the attorney was suspended from the practice of another state by consent and no miscarriage of justice occurred in the proceeding. Further, the attorney failed to file affidavits that were in compliance with D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g).
|
|||||
| Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement, Inc., No. 05-AA-37,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: ALJ's ruling that employee was terminated for misconduct, but not gross misconduct as defined in D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 7, § 312.5, which was based on written counseling records stemming from customer complaints about the employee, was affirmed; it was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
|
|||||
| Tolbert v. United States, No. 98-CF-407,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Victim's testimony was sufficient evidence of defendant's guilt of assault with intent to kill while armed, D.C. Code § 22-401, as the victim testified that a few days before the stabbing, defendant had accused the victim of being involved in the killing of defendant's friend. The jury could infer animosity between defendant and the victim.
|
|||||
| Tr. 1245 13th St., NW #608 v. Anderson, No. 04-CV-1225,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted summary judgment to the buyer of real property because the buyer had valid title to the property by equitable conversion, undisturbed by a foreclosure action under a tax lien as the doctrine of lis pendens was not invoked under D.C. Code § 42-1207.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
