 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bradley v. United States, No. 04-CO-188,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The inmate's second D.C. Code Ann. § 23-110 (2001) motion to vacate his sentence was a successive motion that was procedurally barred. Although the inmate did not allege the same facts supporting the ineffective assistance claim in the second motion that he alleged in the first, the legal basis for relief was the same as in the first motion.
|
|||||
| Brown v. United States, No. 01-CF-1259,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Though a trial court erred in giving jury instructions that the Government did not have duty to collect corroborative physical evidence and that jury's reasonable doubt decision had to be based solely on evidence at trial, the errors were not reversible because defendant argued that lack of corroborative evidence weakened the prosecution's case.
|
|||||
| D.C. Hous. Auth. v. D.C. Office of Human Rights, Nos. 02-CV-524 and 02-CV-525,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an agency petitioned for review within three years of an administrative decision which found it violated the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code §§ 2-1401-1411, such petition was timely under D.C. Code Ann. § 12-301(8) since the statute of limitations did not apply to actions brought by the D.C. government.
|
|||||
| Duffy v. Duffy, No. 04-FM-197,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although it was not clear whether the parties' separation agreement, which bound husband to pay $ 5,000 per month in child support, was merged into or incorporated into their divorce, it was clear the parties intended to be bound by it, all the terms were clear, and the husband could not unilaterally lower his payments.
|
|||||
| In re Bingham, No. 04-BG-920,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was publicly censured, placed on probation for three years, and ordered to make full restitution to his clients for violations of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a), (b), 1.3(a), (c), 1.16(a)(2), arising from his representation of an estate; the sanction was a consistent disposition for comparable conduct.
|
|||||
| In re Frank, No. 05-BG-581,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended for six months for violating D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a); it was found that the attorney had authorized withdrawals from his firm's trust accounts which resulted in insufficient funds. The recommended sanction was not inconsistent with discipline imposed in similar cases, and it was adopted.
|
|||||
| In re Hagendorf, No. 04-BG-305,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since identical reciprocal discipline of an attorney was warranted after the attorney was subjected to disciplinary sanctions in another state for entering a conditional plea in which he admitted violating that state's disciplinary rules, the court imposed identical discipline.
|
|||||
| New 3145 Deauville, L.L.C. v. First Am. Title Ins. Co., No. 04-CV-321,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court erred in finding that the District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority's action to collect unpaid water and sewer bills from the former owner was not subject to the statute of limitations under D.C. Code Ann. § 12-301. While § 12-301 excepted the government from its requirements, it did not apply to the Authority.
|
|||||
| Washington v. United States, No. 00-CF-613,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 25, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was ample evidence linking defendant to a burglary under D.C. Code Ann. §§ 22-1801(b), -3202 (1996) (recodified at D.C. Code Ann. §§ 22-801(b), -4502 (2001)), the trial court did not err in allowing the jury, at its request, to view defendant up close; the jury's request did not constitute a request for new evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
