 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Gaskins v. D.C. Hous. Auth., No. 05-CV-184,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Tenant's negligence, wrongful death, and a survival action claims against the housing authority were dismissed because the tenant failed to give the housing authority the required statutory notice under D.C. Code § 6-205(a). However, the tenant's declaratory judgment action was reinstated as it was not subject to prior compliance with § 6-205(a).
|
|||||
| In re Coopet, No. 06-BG-186,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When California imposed a one-year suspension on an attorney, stayed in favor of probation for two years, the court accepted the Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation that the attorney receive identical reciprocal discipline, subject to a 60-day actual suspension or until he met the California court's CLE and restitution conditions.
|
|||||
| In re D.L., No. 04-FS-1594,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial judge, who found a juvenile violated probation, did not act within his authority when he neither revoked probation nor chose an alternative disposition from among those enumerated by D.C. Code § 16-2327(d) because the law required the court to order a disposition from among those alternatives, which did not include unsuccessful termination.
|
|||||
| In re R.K.S., No. 04-FS-1231,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A juvenile essentially had no counsel as mandated by D.C. Code § 16-2304(a) and D.C. Super. Ct. R. Juv. Proc. R. 44 during the first part of his trial. Although counsel was physically present, she failed to subject the prosecution's case to meaningful adversarial testing, and a presumption of ineffective assistance of counsel was appropriate.
|
|||||
| In re T.H., No. 04-FS-1332,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juvenile's adjudication for unauthorized use of vehicle and receiving stolen property was affirmed. Sufficient evidence supported adjudication, there was no Jencks Act violation, and the District of Columbia did not violate its parens patriae obligation to the juvenile by allowing a Maryland prosecutor to remain in the courtroom during the trial.
|
|||||
| Kitt v. United States, No. 98-CF-1013,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions under D.C. Code § 22-2101 for first-degree premeditated murder and felony murder in a carjacking were reversed because the jury instructions were improper and evidence that defendant had the specific intent to kill the victim was lacking.
|
|||||
| McDonald v. United States, 04-CM-1201,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court violated defendant's due process and Sixth Amendment right when it sua sponte refused to hear testimony from defendant about injuries he suffered during his arrest. The evidence was not repetitive and was relevant to defendant's theory that one officer lied about second officer's actions to cover up that officer's excessive force.
|
|||||
| Sollars v. Cully, No. 04-FM-1667,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of father's motion to dismiss the mother's petition for child support, after the mother had voluntarily vacated the initial support order, was affirmed because the second child support petition was not barred by res judicata as it was based on claims distinct from the first order under D.C. Code § 46-204(b).
|
|||||
| Stroman v. United States, No. 05-CM-392,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 3, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When defendant was charged with cruelty to animals under D.C. Code § 22-1001, it was irrelevant whether she owned the dogs in question, as the statute and the information referred to "charge or custody" of an animal. Defendant's statements to police and her possession of dog food and a dog crate in her living room sufficed to show custody.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
