 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| District of Columbia v. District of Columbia, PSC, No. 04-AA-1177,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia Public Service Commission properly denied the District retroactive relief from telephone rates that it found to be excessive. The filed rate doctrine in D.C. Code §§ 34-603, 34-1123, and 34-1129 and the rule against retroactive alteration of rates barred the retroactive substitute of an unreasonable rate with a reasonable one.
|
|||||
| In re Nwadike, No. 04-BG-995,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An informal admonition, not a 30-day suspension, was the proper sanction for an attorney who filed an untimely and incomplete expert witness statement, thereby violating D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(b). The attorney had no disciplinary history, there was no evidence of intentional misconduct, and mitigating factors included lack of client cooperation.
|
|||||
| In re Warner, No. 04-FM-175,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: D.C. Code § 46-225.02 did not unconstitutionally shift burden of proving willfulness to defendant. Government sustained burden of proving willfulness under § 46-225.02, and evidence was sufficient to permit trial court to find defendant voluntarily impaired ability to comply with child support order and was guilty of contempt under § 46-225.02.
|
|||||
| Modiri v. 1342 Rest. Group, Inc., No. 04-CV-1386,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The trial court did not err in entering judgment against a sublessee for damages and fees based on the doctrine of collateral estoppel because the sublessee was in privity with the defendant in the underlying landlord-tenant action, knew about the original landlord-tenant litigation, and had the opportunity to present any relevant evidence.
|
|||||
| Shepherd v. United States, No. 04-CM-51,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no plain error in applying the Bias-Related Crimes Statute to defendant, who yelled anti-lesbian insults at two women and hit them. The statute punished defendant's assaultive conduct motivated by bias, not his homophobia as such; it was not vague as applied to him; and his sentence had not been enhanced beyond that for simple assault.
|
|||||
| Vest v. United States, No. 03-CF-1320,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction of unlawful distribution of PCP under D.C. Code § 48-904.01(a)(1). A habitual PCP user testified that defendant sold her the cigarettes dipped in PCP that she had been looking for and that they made her high; she gave no indication that what she bought was anything other than PCP.
|
|||||
| Yelverton v. United States, No. 03-CF-1204,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 10, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although, in a drug case, the trial court erred in responding to a juror's questions regarding third-party perpetrator evidence with a supplemental charge that was unbalanced, the error was harmless. Four witnesses testified that they saw defendant toss something as police approached, but none testified that they saw his companion toss anything.
|
|||||
| Solers, Inc. v. Doe, Civil Action No.: 05-3779,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, August 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a corporation said an unknown party made a defamatory statement about it to a trade association, the corporation's subpoena to the association to learn the party's identity was quashed, under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 45(c)(3)(A), because the corporation did not show it was injured nor did it exhaust alternative sources of this information.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
