 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carlson Constr. Co. v. Dupont W. Condo., Inc., No. 06-CV-918,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Condominium building owner was granted summary judgment because a contractor who was not licensed as a home improvement contractor in the District of Columbia accepted advance payments for work done under a contract. The contract was thus rendered void and unenforceable, and the owner was entitled to reimbursement of progress payments already paid.
|
|||||
| Crawford v. United States, No. 01-CF-269,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attempt to assert defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel at unrelated hearing had no legal effect on right in this matter. Trial court did not err in failing to sanction prosecutor for improper statements as, inter alia, defense counsel had opportunity to cross-examine witness about talk with prosecutor and curative instructions were given.
|
|||||
| In re Bauer, No. 06-BG-1404,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for nine months in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 because he acknowledged that he breached his fiduciary duties in administering a trust in the State of Illinois, and no exception was filed under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g)(2) in the proceeding.
|
|||||
| Limpuangthip v. United States, No. 05-CM-951,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 27, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Fourth Amendment was not implicated during search of defendant's college dormitory room because special police officers (SPOs) were not acting as agents of the state when the community director conducted a search of defendant's room; evidence showed SPOs' involvement was peripheral, producing a master key and evidence bags for the director to use.
|
|||||
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. |
