 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
| 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.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
