 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 6921 Ga. Ave., N.W., Ltd. P'ship v. Universal Cmty. Dev., LLC, No. 07-CV-170,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's not considering whether a partnership was entitled to attorneys' fees under D.C. Code § 42-1207(d) in relation to a company's filing of lis pendens was reversed, and the case was remanded for the trial court to enter a finding on the issue.
|
|||||
| Barnhardt v. United States, No. 06-CF-604,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for fleeing a law enforcement officer, in violation of D.C. Code § 50-2201.05b(b)(1), was affirmed because the trial court did not abuse its discretion by not instructing the jury on the affirmative defense under D.C. Code § 50-2201.05b(c) as defendant was not entitled to the affirmative defense jury instruction.
|
|||||
| Burno v. United States, Nos. 97-CF-1698, 06-CO-488,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of defendant's videotaped statements was upheld because defendant did not unequivocally assert his right to end the interrogation, and, under judicial precedent, the police were not obliged to clarify defendant's ambiguous responses before questioning him further about the crime.
|
|||||
| Gary v. United States, No. 07-CM-717,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence defendant intentionally conveyed impression he was a police officer by displaying a badge, having a red light on dashboard of car, threatening victim with arrest, and otherwise acting with apparent law enforcement authority supported a conviction for falsely representing himself as a member of the police force under D.C. Code § 22-1406.
|
|||||
| Howard v. United States, No. 05-CF-1329,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in deeming defendant competent to stand trial where there were four successive reports from hospital deeming defendant competent, clinical psychologist testified defendant was competent and refusal to communicate was volitional, and defendant presented no evidence to the contrary. Show-up identifications were admissible.
|
|||||
| In re Ayres-Fountain, No. 06-BG-273,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended in a reciprocal disciplinary case from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, with the suspension to run nunc pro tunc from the date when she filed her D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14(g) affidavit, and she was required to show fitness prior to reinstatement because there was no grave injustice under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c)(3).
|
|||||
| In re Kline, No. 07-BG-1186,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney knowingly presented an employee as a client's corporate representative at trial, allowed the employee to testify falsely under oath, and forged the signature of the client's corporate representative, the attorney was reciprocally disbarred for violating D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.3(b)(2), 1.4(c), 3.3(a), 3.4(b), and 8.4(c), (d).
|
|||||
| Jones v. Thompson, No. 05-CV-1316,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly voided a tax deed at summary judgment because the owner of the real property testified that he never received notice of the expiring redemption period under the tax sale, while the buyers of the property could not show that the District of Columbia had complied with the notice requirements under D.C. Code § 47-1303.04(f)(1).
|
|||||
| P.F. v. N.C., Nos. 06-FM-165 & 06-FM-1609,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 7, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision to award custody of two children to father, despite his commission of intrafamily offenses, required reconsideration; despite D.C. Code § 16-914(a)(3) mandating that court consider parent's commission of intrafamily offense in determining custody, trial court gave little discussion of that factor in regard to custody ruling.
|
|||||
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. |
