 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Florence v. United States, No. 05-CM-159,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for assault and attempted second-degree cruelty to children were overturned as trial court overlooked defense evidence and imposed too narrow a view on defense of parental discipline; there was evidence that, inter alia, child, who was bigger than defendant had history of violent behavior, was misbehaving, and would not obey defendant.
|
|||||
| Gordon v. United States, No. 05-CF-378,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was properly convicted of unauthorized use of a motor vehicle, D.C. Code § 22-3215 (2001), as issue of whether an all-terrain vehicle (ATV) constituted a "motor vehicle" under the statute was an issue of law rather than one of fact for the jury and the trial court properly found ATV to be a motor vehicle as it was propelled by a motor.
|
|||||
| In re Hermina, No. 04-BG-246,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, in a reciprocal discipline proceeding, was publicly censured by the District of Columbia Court of Appeals because a public censure was well within the range of appropriate sanctions as the attorney violated the Maryland Rules of Professional Conduct, and a public censure was the functional equivalent of a public reprimand in Maryland.
|
|||||
| In re Miller, No. 06-BG-344,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 21, 2006, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred from practice of law in the District of Columbia (D.C.) per his consent based on his plea of guilty in a criminal matter in Florida and his disbarment there. Reinstatement of reciprocal discipline proceedings would be permitted if the attorney sought reinstatement in D.C. while his disbarment in Florida was still in effect.
|
|||||
| In re Toppelberg, No. 06-BG-860,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended, with half of the suspension held in abeyance in lieu of a year of supervised probation, as the attorney violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a), 1.15(b), 5.3, 8.1(b), and 8.4(d), and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3) when he failed to disburse funds to two providers after a personal injury case for which he was responsible settled.
|
|||||
| Jefferson v. United States, No. 04-CF-1589,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Heroin found in search incident to arrest was admissible because officer had probable cause to arrest defendant due to defendant's distinctive actions in twice removing small objects from the crotch area of defendant's trousers, the second time after seemingly re-supplying himself from a nearby car, and transferring second object to another person.
|
|||||
| Lowrey v. Glassman, Nos. 04-CV-323 and 04-CV-398,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court properly granted a veterinarian's and a clinic's motion to strike a homeowner's expert witnesses as the homeowner failed to properly identify them under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 26(b)(4). The court also properly granted summary judgment to the veterinarian and the clinic as the homeowner could not prove his case without the witnesses.
|
|||||
| Threatt v. Winston, No. 04-CV-191, No. 04-CV-545,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's dismissal of a former tenant's wrongful eviction action against a landlord was affirmed as the tenant could attack a default judgment entered against him in a prior action for possession the landlord brought only by filing a motion to vacate the default judgment under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b)(4). However, he failed to do so.
|
|||||
| Teoume-Lessane v. United States, No. 04-CF-904,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 27, 2006, Argued, September 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction was affirmed because the District of Columbia Innocence Protection Act of 2001 did not as a matter of law require reversal, regardless of a defendant's failure to object at trial, when a trial judge failed to comply with the pretrial notification requirements of D.C. Code § 22-4132(c), and the prosecutor did not make an improper comment.
|
|||||
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. |
