District of Columbia, October, 2005, 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 - October 6 - October 11, 2005

In re Chasnoff, No. 04-BG-1436, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Substantial evidence in record supported Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation that identical reciprocal discipline should be imposed on attorney in District of Columbia for his misconduct in Maryland, namely, disbarment; no evidence showed that any of the D.C. Bar R. XI, ? 11(c) exceptions to reciprocal discipline applied.

Search Cases for Free

In re Joyner, No. 03-BG-1054, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Because an attorney was suspended from the practice of law for nine months in Maryland for failing to properly represent his clients, the attorney received reciprocal discipline in the District of Columbia; reinstatement was conditioned on proof that the attorney had been readmitted in Maryland or that he complied with the court's conditions.

Search Cases for Free

Oparaugo v. Watts, No. 01-CV-437, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Although publication of alleged defamatory material occurred in Nigeria, it was not improper to apply District of Columbia law in absence of any evidence about Nigerian law; alleged victim should have been allowed to offer proof that a disability tolled D.C. Code Ann. ? 12-301 limitations period and that no privileges protected publishers.

Search Cases for Free

Zacarias v. United States, No. 03-CF-1496, DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 6, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Overview: Although evidence showed that owner of car was father, and not daughter, who was person named in indictment charging defendant with receiving stolen property and unauthorized use of a vehicle, the deviation between charges in indictment and proof at trial was only variance and was not fatal. Name of owner was not essential element of either charge.

Search Cases for Free

United States v. Graves, Case No. F 1812-82, SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CRIMINAL DIVISION - SPECIAL PROCEEDINGS BRANCH, October 11, 2005, Decided
View this case - free

Search Cases for Free

Communities Portal