 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Borger Mgmt. v. Sindram, No. 03-CV-14,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an agency found that a landlord's decision not to renew a Section 8 lease was not retaliatory under D.C. Code Ann. ¿ 42-3505.02, the tenant's retaliation argument was barred under the doctrine of collateral estoppel and the landlord was entitled to partial summary judgment because, inter alia, the agency was acting in a judicial capacity.
|
|||||
| Duggan v. District of Columbia, No. 98-CV-199,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Police officer was on an emergency run under D.C. Code Ann. ¿¿2-411(4) (2001) where he genuinely believed he should pursue a driver expeditiously after seeing him jerk his vehicle several times, accelerate, go through a red light, and run from the signaling officer.
|
|||||
| Frye v. United States, No. 02-CF-1233, No. 03-CO-430, No. 03-CO-1492,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's prior stalking and attacks on victim were admissible to prove motive when he chased her in her car, and his car amounted to a dangerous weapon for purposes of D.C. Code Ann. ¿¿ 22-402 and 22-402.01; those offenses merged when distinguishing element of resulting serious injury was eliminated in attempt charge.
|
|||||
| Gubbins v. Hurson, No. 03-CV-780,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defense verdict in medical malpractice action was reversed because physician's expert opinion testimony was not disclosed prior to trial as required by D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 26 (b)(4), and testimony patient would not have suffered nerve damage if appellees had adhered to standard of care was enough to warrant res ipsa loquitur instruction.
|
|||||
| Ingram v. United States, No. 02-CF-1272,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Statement made by the inmate to defendant's trial counsel was a statement against penal interest; the statement was not privileged and was at least as incriminating as one made to a law enforcement officer, and was not uncorroborated in that the declarant was on the scene, had a motive, and an anonymous accusation was made implicating the inmate.
|
|||||
| Maybin v. Stewart, No. 99-FM-1046,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 14, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Court's order that all the parties submit to counseling before a father could resume child visitation after an absence was not an abuse of discretion. Further, D.C. Code Ann. ¿ 16-911(a-2)(4)(A) (2001) did not apply to the reconsideration hearing as there was no modification of the initial order, and the mother was entitled to attorney's fees.
|
|||||
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. |
