 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bryant v. United States, Nos. 97-CF-1634 and 97-CF-1764,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 14, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendants were properly prevented from cross-examining a victim about her decision to continue working as a prostitute after the night in which she was repeatedly raped by them.
|
|||||
| In re T.L., Nos. 03-FS-1093 and 03-FS-1571,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 14, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's stated reasons for barring a mother's visitation with her boys were insufficient as a matter of law, as a goal of adoption did not automatically warrant a ban on visitation and a therapist's report contained only conclusory statements.
|
|||||
| In re Dortch, No. 01-BG-1385,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A prospective attorney's application for admission to the Bar was denied; based on a conviction of second-degree murder and other crimes arising from an attempted bank robbery, the attorney did not possess sufficient moral character or fitness.
|
|||||
| In re Mirsky, No. 03-BG-374,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from practice of law in District of Columbia after he was suspended for 90 days in Maryland for negligently misappropriating client funds. Six-month suspension was consistent with the sanction usually meted out in the District.
|
|||||
| In re Powell, No. 02-BG-701,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where a suspended attorney was disbarred in Maryland and the Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation of identical reciprocal discipline was unopposed, the court granted heightened deference to the recommendation and adopted it.
|
|||||
| In re Tsai, No. 03-BG-1088,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney was given a public reprimand as discipline in Maryland for professional misconduct, and where the Board on Professional Responsibility recommended reciprocal discipline, the attorney was publicly censured.
|
|||||
| Tolson v. District of Columbia, Nos. 00-CV-1495 and 00-CV-1510,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 21, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Compensatory damages based on son's initial stop by police were properly set aside, as statutory notice letter and joint pretrial statement did not mention stop, complaint referred to it in one sentence, and District of Columbia was prejudiced.
|
|||||
| United States v. Arnold, Criminal Nos. M-2701-81, F-2715-81, F-7292-83, F-14335-88,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION, October 27, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 9(a) was not properly adopted by the D.C. Board of Judges, a court denied the Government's motion to dismiss defendant's motion under D.C. Code ¿ 23-110 to vacate his guilty pleas as the rule conflicted with case law and the Board had no authority to adopt any rule that conflicted with controlling case law.
|
|||||
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. |
