 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bostic v. District of Columbia, No. 05-CV-41,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a driver's tortious claims against the District of Columbia was affirmed because the officer who arrested the driver was acting under the authority granted to him as a member of the U.S. Capitol Police, rather than any authority from the District of Columbia. The District of Columbia also did not control the activities of the officer.
|
|||||
| Clawson v. St. Louis Post-Dispatch, LLC, No. 04-CV-486,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of a private investigator's complaint for defamation against a newspaper, its employees, and its publisher was affirmed because, read in context, the words "informer" and "FBI informer," which appeared in an article in the newspaper, were not reasonably susceptible of a defamatory meaning.
|
|||||
| Diggs v. United States, Nos. 03-CF-1193 and 03-CF-1350,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions were affirmed because defendants presented insufficient evidence regarding their Sixth Amendment claim as to the lack of a fair-cross-section of the community in the jury pool. Also, even if a showup identification was unnecessarily suggestive, the court did not err in denying a motion to suppress as the evidence supported the decision.
|
|||||
| In re J.B., Nos. 06-OA-21, 06-FS-941. Nos. 06-OA-23, 06-FS-937,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Juveniles' motions for summary reversal and petitions for the writ of mandamus were denied because D.C. Super. Ct. R. Juv. Proc. R. 32(a)'s requirement that a disposition hearing be held within 15 days was directory. Thus, a trial court did not exceed its authority by extending that period for a reasonable time to obtain predisposition reports.
|
|||||
| Pinckney v. United States, No. 02-CM-634,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's convictions for misdemeanor sexual abuse, in violation of D.C. Code § 22-4106 (recodified as D.C. Code § 22-3006), and attempted lewd acts, in violation of D.C. Code §§ 22-1112(a) and 22-103 (recodified as D.C. Code §§ 22-1312(a) and 22-1803) were affirmed because the evidence was sufficient to support the convictions.
|
|||||
| Valdez v. United States, No. 05-CO-435,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings as remand of the case to the trial court was necessary to afford defendant the opportunity to establish the necessary facts under D.C. Code § 16-713(b) regarding his claim that he was not advised at the time of his plea of the immigration consequences of pleading guilty.
|
|||||
| W.D. v. C.S.M., No. 99-FM-1138, No. 99-FM-1299,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a child was under the trial court's jurisdiction in a neglect case, and a married couple unrelated to the child filed a domestic relations complaint, it was error to award the married couple permanent custody. The domestic statutes did not include the procedural safeguards of the neglect statutes, D.C. Code § 16-2301 et seq.
|
|||||
| Young v. Interstate Hotels & Resorts, No. 05-CV-363,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, August 31, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment to a hotel was reversed and remanded for trial because while an emergency medical technician (EMT) failed to timely designate an expert witness in a timely manner under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 26(e), another designated expert witness was qualified to opine on the EMT's alternative theory of negligence regarding a hotel.
|
|||||
| Wash. Auto. Co. v. 1828 L St. Assocs., No. 05-CV-166,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 14, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's granting of a tenant's motion to confirm a real estate appraisal was affirmed because the appraisal was an arbitration award under D.C. Code § 16-4301 and enforceable under the District of Columbia Arbitration Act, D.C. Code §§ 16-4301 to 16-4319. Further, the landlord did not meet his burden to set it aside under D.C. Code § 16-4311.
|
|||||
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. |
