 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Chiapella v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, No. 05-AA-656,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: BZA's determination that extraordinary circumstances did not excuse untimely filing of appeal was not arbitrary; delayed filing was not outside petitioners' control or reasonably unforeseeable under D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 11, § 3112.2(a)(1). No D.C. Code § 6-641.07(f) evidentiary hearing was required for claim BZA disposed of as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Economides v. D.C. Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, No. 06-AA-1381,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under D.C. Code 2-510, neighbor had standing to challenge permit because structure his obstructed view of a park. Appeal was timely under D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 11, § 3112.2(a), as it was filed within 60 days of learning of his injury. Structure composed of geogrids, compacted soil, and mesa blocks was a platform structure and not a retaining wall.
|
|||||
| Gilchrist v. United States, No. 03-CF-1076,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's decision to exclude the proffered testimony of a proposed witness, which testimony concerned a declaration against penal interest, was affirmed because defendant failed to preserve his constitutional claim by raising it in the trial court and the court correctly considered the reliability and trustworthiness of the statements.
|
|||||
| In re Ditton, No. 06-BG-44,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Action for reciprocal attorney discipline was remanded for further proceedings where findings in Virginia would not support the substantially different discipline of a fitness requirement; among other things, appellate court was not presented with a record and findings that justified the imposition of a fitness requirement as an original matter.
|
|||||
| In re Weaver, No. 06-BG-722,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Regardless of the status of an attorney's conviction for conspiracy to commit the unauthorized practice of law, he resigned from the California Bar while disciplinary proceedings were pending; thus, a functionally equivalent reciprocal discipline of a five-year suspension with a fitness requirement was imposed under D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 11(c).
|
|||||
| Pitt v. D.C. Dep't of Corr., No. 06-CV-1006,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 14, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly affirmed decision by employee appeals office dismissing correctional officer's appeal of corrections department's termination of his employment, as employee appeals office lacked jurisdiction to consider it; union did not take his grievance to arbitration and he did not then seek sole remedy of requesting union to arbitrate.
|
|||||
| Gaynell v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 06-AA-1511,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 21, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Board properly upheld ruling affirming a reduction in employee's disability benefits; request for restoration of benefits on ground that request was deemed accepted under D.C. Code § 1-623.24(a-3)(1) and D.C. Code § 1-623.24(a-4)(2) had to be rejected, as those provisions applied to claims to initiate payment, not to requests to modify benefits.
|
|||||
| In re A.B., No. 07-FS-907,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 21, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as termination of mother's parental rights under D.C. Code § 16-2353(b) was in child's best interests based on trial judge's observations that mother's mental health was "in serious doubt" that was supported by doctor's testimony that mother had borderline ability to function as adequate parental caregiver.
|
|||||
| Scott v. United States, No. 04-CF-527,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 21, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as to an assault with a dangerous weapon conviction, and reversed as to aggravated assault while armed and possession of a firearm during a crime of violence convictions because the court's re-instruction on the aggravated assault charge was incorrect and rendered the aggravated assault and possession convictions invalid.
|
|||||
| USA Waste of Md., Inc. v. Love, No. 05-CV-1183,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 21, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The truck driver, a staffing company employee, was an employee of the trash company where the driver had been assigned to work within the meaning of workers' compensation law and thus, the trash company was immune from tort liability to the driver and was entitled to judgment as a matter of law in a personal injury action filed by the driver.
|
|||||
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. |
