 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Carter v. United States, Nos. 06-CF-458 & 06-CF-476,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for assault with intent to commit robbery while armed in violation of D.C. Code §§ 22-401, 22-4502 and assault with a dangerous weapon in violation of D.C. Code § 22-4502 merged when they concerned violations of the same statute, by the same actions, and the legislature did not intend to allow multiple sentences in such circumstances.
|
|||||
| Davis v. Davis, No. 07-FM-418,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was possible that a superior court dismissed a divorce action based on the mistaken belief that D.C. Code § 16-910 required it to adjudicate the parties' property rights if it exercised personal jurisdiction over a nonresident wife- -an issue it had not addressed- -reversal and remand were required.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Jordan, No. 07-PR-68,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorneys' claim against an estate for legal fees was barred, under D.C. Code § 20-1301, because the estate was closed before the attorneys filed their complaint, and the trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing to reopen the estate. The attorneys' claim was also barred under D.C. Code § 20-903(a)(2) because they failed to timely file.
|
|||||
| Smallwood v. D.C. Metro. Police Dep't, No. 07-CV-851,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of workers' compensation benefits was affirmed as District of Columbia police sergeant, when accosted in Maryland, did not suffer injuries as member of District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department while in performance of duty as police officer, even if he was affiliated with Prince George's County, Maryland, Police Department.
|
|||||
| Tucci v. D.C., No. 06-CV-1344,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 18, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The fact that residents complied with D.C. Code § 12-309 (2001) by giving the District of Columbia timely notice of their claims did not constitute a waiver of the District's sovereign immunity. The residents' private nuisance claims failed because they did not establish any underlying tortious conduct for which the District was liable.
|
|||||
| Clampitt v. Am. Univ., No. 07-CV-143,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A trial court properly dismissed a former employee's breach of an oral employment contract claim as barred by the statute of frauds under D.C. Code § 28-3502 but erred in dismissing her defamation claim as she sufficiently alleged that her termination was public based on a newspaper article wherein the employer asserted financial mismanagement.
|
|||||
| Taylor v. D.C. Water & Sewer Auth., No. 06-CV-1471,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, September 25, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee sued his employer and supervisor, alleging the latter assaulted him and the former retaliated against him. As his prima facie tort count gave employer fair notice employee was asserting common law claim for breach of employer's duty to provide safe workplace, that claim should not have been dismissed under D.C. Super. Ct. Civ. R. 12(b)(6).
|
|||||
| Amegashie v. CCA of Tenn., No. 06-AA-194,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The District of Columbia Office of Administrative Hearings erred in finding that a former employee was ineligible for unemployment benefits pursuant to D.C. Code § 51-110(b)(1) because a former employer did not meet its burden of establishing that the employee committed gross misconduct that rendered her ineligible for unemployment benefits.
|
|||||
| NCRIC, Inc. v. Columbia Hosp. for Women Med. Ctr., Inc., No. 05-CV-1269,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 2, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Insurer's proposed instructions were properly refused; instructions would have erroneously required hospital to prove wrongful or egregious conduct on insurer as part of its prima facie case. Challenge to evidence supporting damages award was not preserved for review; it was not included in D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 50 motions.
|
|||||
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. |
