District of Columbia, August, 2006, State Case law

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!

State Courts - District of Columbia - August 17, 2006

Hairston v. United States, Nos. 00-CF-1045 and 03-CO-417, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Trial court did not violate the Fifth Amendment by denying defendant's motion to suppress his confession, where his interrogation was in two phases. A detective elicited none of the details from defendant in phase one that emerged in phase two, and the Miranda warnings would meaningfully apprise a suspect of the right or choice to remain silent.

Search Cases for Free

In re I.J., No. 03-FS-671, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 17, 2006
View this case - free

Overview: Statements of appellee, a juvenile, were properly suppressed when appellee had not been given Miranda warnings. When appellee, a resident of a youth center, was taken to a private room to await police, he was in custody, and when an officer asked him what had happened, he should have known that this was likely to elicit an incriminating response.

Search Cases for Free

In re I.J., No. 03-FS-671, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 17, 2006, Filed
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

In re Lanier, No. 04-FM-726, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: When a patient checked herself into a psychiatric facility as an inpatient after a petition for judicial hospitalization under D.C. Code ? 21-541(a) was filed against her, her voluntary inpatient status did not mean that she could no longer be involuntarily committed.

Search Cases for Free

Nichols v. First Union Nat'l Bank, No. 04-CV-1576, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Discovery sanctions were properly imposed on a customer in his action against a bank and one of its employees, and resulting summary judgment in favor of appellees was also proper. However, award of costs to bank under D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 68 was improper; Rule 68 did not apply when a defendant was the prevailing party.

Search Cases for Free

Parker v. Martin, No. 04-CV-262, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: As to a negligence claim brought by a mother and a son after the son was found to have elevated levels of lead, the trial court had failed to consider whether the landlords could be found negligent under housing regulations. Remand was ordered for a determination of whether the claim was supportable under D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 14, ? 2605.4.

Search Cases for Free

Young-Jones v. Bell, No. 05-FM-653, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 17, 2006, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: In a divorce, the trial court's statement that it had considered the factors in D.C. Code ? 16-910 in dividing sales proceeds did not allow meaningful appellate review. It had left unresolved a number of conflicts in testimony relating to the factors, and it appeared that consideration of each factor might lead to a different result.

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal