 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bloch v. District of Columbia, No. 03-CT-680,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for crossing police-line near White House, set up after ultimatum issued to Saddam Hussein, was reversed as there was not sufficient testimony presented to show restriction was narrowly tailored to serve significant governmental interest.
|
|||||
| Blunt v. United States, No. 02-CF-595,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Limitation on cross-examination of government witness was erroneous where trial court disallowed an entire line of cross-examination regarding witness's bias to curry favor with government, thereby infringing on defendant's constitutional rights.
|
|||||
| Castellon v. United States, No. 02-CF-276,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although Spanish-speaking officer who explained request for consent to search and Miranda waiver was not certified interpreter under District law, showing of voluntariness justified suppression motion denial and statement's admission for impeachment.
|
|||||
| Forti v. Ashcraft & Gerel, No. 03-CV-632,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorneys' summary judgment motion was properly granted in legal malpractice suit given client's misrepresentations as to errors in underlying transcript, repeated delays in naming expert, and inability to name expert or explain when she would.
|
|||||
| Hart v. United States, No. 03-CF-256,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Aggravated assault conviction was upheld as, inter alia, evidence of victim's reputation for violence was properly excluded, evidence was sufficient to find defendant assaulted victim first, and inconsistent verdict was not ground for reversal.
|
|||||
| In re A.F., No. 04-FS-837,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2004, Decided * * This opinion was originally issued in unpublished form. It is now being published upon grant of appellee's motion to that end.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where defendant, allegedly upon seeing unmarked police car, quickly put his hand in his pocket and walked away, but he then walked back to where he had been, officers lacked reasonable suspicion to seize him. He engaged in ambiguous activity by walking away and then returning, and there was no evidence that he knew police were present.
|
|||||
| In re Key, No. 04-BG-428,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where North Carolina's bar had suspended attorney from practice of law for two years for attorney's conviction for assault on female but stayed suspension for three years, District of Columbia imposed reciprocal discipline but also stayed suspension.
|
|||||
| In re King, No. 04-BS-1485 & 03-BG-623,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2004, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| In re McGann, No. 01-BG-1577,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2004, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended for 30 days in a reciprocal disciplinary action, which was different discipline than the public reprimand he received in another jurisdiction for representing multiple defendants in a criminal action.
|
|||||
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. |
