 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Y. J. K. v. D.A., CASE NO. DRB-1911-04,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, FAMILY COURT, September 9, 2005
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because a mother did not demonstrate any connection between an 11-year-old psychological evaluation and the father's alleged conduct, and the custody proceeding was not statutorily excepted by D.C. Code Ann. § 4-1321.05, the mother did not present or proffer sufficient grounds to override the physician-patient privilege in D.C. Code Ann. § 14-307.
|
|||||
| District of Columbia v. D.C. Office of Emple. Appeals, 03-CV-667,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the Inspector General's report did not conclude the criminal investigation of a police department employee, the trial court erred in determining that the 45-day time period in D.C. Code Ann. § 1.617.1(b-1)(2) (1992) began to toll at that time.
|
|||||
| In re Bailey, No. 03-BG-171,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney negligently misappropriated funds under D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15. He withdrew settlement funds from the client trust account that the attorney had assigned to a doctor for medical services rendered. The act was negligent; the attorney never tried to hide his use of the funds, and he testified that he intended to pay the doctor.
|
|||||
| In re Miller, No. 05-BG-203,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was publicly reprimanded in the District of Columbia after Maryland publicly reprimanded him for the unauthorized practice of law in Mississippi. The public reprimand was the functional equivalent Maryland's sanction, a reasonable sanction, and not inconsistent with discipline imposed in similar cases.
|
|||||
| In re Morris, No. 04-BG-846 & 04-BG-993,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 15, 2005, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Herbin v. Hoeffel, No. 04-CV-907,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 20, 2005, * Decided * The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. It is now being published, with minor alterations, at the request of appellees.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because there was no attorney-client relationship between a criminal defendant and an attorney, the attorney had no duty under D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.6 to preserve the confidentiality of information received during a personal relationship; thus, the attorney, the public defender service, and its director were all entitled to summary judgment.
|
|||||
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. |
