 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brisbon v. United States, Nos. 02-CF-601, 02-CF-777 & 04-CO-144,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 9, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant was entitled to a new trial because trial court's error in admitting a codefendant's full confession incriminating defendant in a joint trial was not harmless. Without the confession, the government's evidence against defendant was largely circumstantial.
|
|||||
| Burton v. NTT Consulting, LLC, No. 07-AA-538,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 9, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Unemployment benefits case was remanded as administrative law judge abused his discretion by refusing to conduct factual inquiry concerning unemployment benefits claimant's explanation for her absence at hearing and by failing to explain why she could not satisfy grounds for relief under D.C. Mun. Regs. tit. 1, ¿ 2833.2.
|
|||||
| Fred A. Smith Mgmt. Co. v. Cerpe, Nos. 07-CV-35, 07-CV-36,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 9, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code ¿ 2-1401.01 et seq., for sexual harassment against a supervisor and retaliation against an employer, its officers, and the supervisor was affirmed because there was sufficient evidence that the supervisor sexually harassed the employee who was subsequently fired for complaining.
|
|||||
| Wilburn v. District of Columbia, No. 07-CV-287,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 9, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee's complaint, under D.C. Code ¿¿ 1-615.53 and 1-615.54(a), for violation of the District of Columbia Whistleblower Protection Act was dismissed because the employee's statements criticizing the performance of a law firm acting under a contract did not constitute a protected disclosure within the meaning of D.C. Code ¿ 1-615.52(a)(6).
|
|||||
| In re Wing, No. 08-BG-571 & 08-BG-572,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 16, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| White v. United States, No. 06-CF-942,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 16, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: D.C. Code ¿ 22-3013 conviction was supported by ward's testimony that sexual act occurred with corrections officer. Jury had prerogative to resolve ward's ambiguous testimony in favor of guilt. Sentence did not exceed statutory maximum and reflected ward's vulnerability as transgender inmate in all-male prison unit and non-consensual nature of act.
|
|||||
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. |
