 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Banks v. United States, No. 07-CF-127,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of violating 40 U.S.C.S. ¿ 6134 due to discharging a flare gun on the front plaza of the United States Supreme Court because although the term "firework" was not defined in ¿ 6134, the flare gun fell within the dictionary definition as it was a signaling device and the projectile caused a flame when it was ejected.
|
|||||
| Bolton v. Bernabei & Katz, PLLC, Nos. 05-CV-642 and 05-CV-860,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Arbitration award for a law firm that a client pay the firm legal fees was affirmed because (1) the evidentiary rulings did not deprive the client of a fair hearing under D.C. Code ¿ 16-4311(a)(4); and (2) the arbitrators did not exceed their powers under D.C. Code ¿ 16-4311(a)(3) as the client was bound to arbitrate under the retainer agreement.
|
|||||
| Burgess v. United States, No. 05-CF-177,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant failed to identify his expert, the expert's qualifications, and the particular opinions to be rendered (together with the bases for the opinions), the trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying his motion in limine. The trial judge had virtually no useful information regarding the proposed expert.
|
|||||
| In re Wilson, No. 08-BG-375,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred for her violation of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a), 3.3(a)(1), 8.1(b), and 8.4(c) and (d) and D.C. Bar R. XI, ¿ 2 (b)(3) because the attorney intentionally misappropriated funds from the estate of her ward and falsified documents to avoid detection; the attorney also failed to cooperate with the disciplinary proceedings.
|
|||||
| Scott v. United States, No. 04-CF-402,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense counsel was properly precluded from cross-examining victim about relationship with another person because there was no evidence to support defendant's claim victim's injuries were result of her having engaged in rough sex with another person. Victim's six-year-old son was competent to testify and use of leading questions was permissible.
|
|||||
| Wash. Convention Ctr. Auth. v. Johnson, Nos. 04-CV-193 and 04-CV-387,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, July 31, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee was awarded judgment in an action against his employer and supervisor because the employee produced sufficient evidence to show discriminatory intent for a claim of age discrimination, under D.C. Code ¿ 2-1402.11(a)(1), despite the employer's and the supervisor's business-based explanations for the termination of the employee.
|
|||||
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. |
