 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chamberlain v. Am. Honda Fin. Corp., No. 05-CV-755,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Car buyers failed to state a claim against a finance company for violation of District of Columbia Municipal Regulations and the District of Columbia Consumer Protection Procedures Act, D.C. Code § 28-3901 et seq., because Maryland law applied to the transactions, but the buyers only alleged violations of District of Columbia law.
|
|||||
| Franchak v. D.C. Metro. Police Dep't, No. 06-CV-756,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of police officer's claim for administrative sick leave under District of Columbia Police and Firefighters Retirement and Disability Act was upheld as incident was not beyond the stresses police officers face on a daily basis; officer, inter alia, suffered no physical injury and said it was dealing with fact he put another officer in danger.
|
|||||
| Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 06-AA-413,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although the record supported the administrative law judge's finding of a causal connection with respect to the lower-back pain and the claimant's work related injury, there was no evidentiary support for disability benefits beyond the date the claimant was released to return to work and thus, the award for benefits beyond that date was vacated.
|
|||||
| Geter v. United States, No. 04-CF-474,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Allowing prosecutor to reveal parts of co-defendant's statement which inculpated defendant was erroneous because defendant's identification as one of the perpetrators was a contested factual issue at trial and jury could well have been influenced in assessment of evidence against defendant by prosecutor's assertions co-defendant inculpated him.
|
|||||
| In re Herbst, No. 06-BG-1413,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia because one of his nonlawyer employees negotiated the settlement of a client family's claims without consulting them, the family was not notified of the settlement, and the settlement funds were placed in the attorney's trust account which fell below the settlement amount.
|
|||||
| In re Slaughter, No. 03-BG-770,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law for three years because clear and convincing evidence supported the finding that he violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(b) by engaging in acts of forgery as to a fee agreement and violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 8.4(c) by engaging in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and/or misrepresentation.
|
|||||
| Lazo v. United States, No. 05-CF-558,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction was affirmed because the trial court properly allowed gang references into evidence as the testimony established a motive for defendant's actions, and the court properly balanced the relevance of the evidence against any prejudice to defendant. Moreover, the prosecutor's comments during closing argument were not improper.
|
|||||
| Moore v. Waller, No. 05-CV-695,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court properly held that a waiver and release was valid and enforceable and was a complete defense in a club member's action after he was allegedly injured while participating in a demonstration of kick boxing. The release was conspicuous and unambiguous, and it was clearly recognizable as a release from liability.
|
|||||
| Payne v. United States, Nos. 05-CF-475 & 05-CF-476,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for aggravated assault while armed, D.C. Code §§ 22-404.01 and 22-4502, and other crimes was affirmed. A reasonable jury could find that the victim suffered serious bodily injury from defendant's assaultive conduct, as two bones in the victim's left hand were broken as a result of the assault.
|
|||||
| Veney v. United States, Nos. 04-CF-353 & 06-CO-543,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 2, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not abuse its discretion in proceeding to trial and denying defendant's eleventh-hour request for a colloquy as to the relevant provisions of the District of Columbia Innocence Protection Act of 2001, D.C. Code §§ 22-4131 to 22-4135, because defendant was substantially advised before then by the court of the right to DNA testing.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
