 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Ackerman v. Genevieve Ackerman Family Trust, No. 05-CV-652,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court's declaration that a beneficiary under a trust lost his interests under the trust and a will because of a no contest provision in the trust was affirmed as the no contest provision in the trust was valid and enforceable, and the beneficiary's failed lawsuit to reform the trust clearly violated it.
|
|||||
| Grant v. District of Columbia, No. 04-CV-190,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of an employee's claim for violation of his procedural rights was affirmed as the decision to place him temporarily on paid administrative leave neither violated the District of Columbia Comprehensive Merit Personnel Act, D.C. Code § 1-601.01 et seq., nor deprived him of a protected liberty or property interest under the Fifth Amendment.
|
|||||
| Hairston v. United States, No. 00-CF-1661,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for assault with a dangerous weapon was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial because there was no evidence that was admitted for its truth that allowed the jury to find that defendant was an accomplice to the crime rather than the principal offender. Thus, the trial court erred by giving an aiding and abetting instruction.
|
|||||
| In re N.D., No. 00-FS-1054,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Revocation of a mother's protective supervision of her minor child was affirmed as the evidence was sufficient, under D.C. Code § 17-305(a) (2001), to support the finding that the mother violated a condition of the protective supervision by allowing her boyfriend to be in her home with the minor child. Also, the mother was not denied due process.
|
|||||
| In re Romo Vejar, No. 06-BG-10,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, who had been subjected to public censure and one year probation in Arizona, was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for six months after the Board on Professional Responsibility noted that such was the usual sanction for negligent misappropriation.
|
|||||
| Mayers v. Mayers, Nos. 01-FM-795 and 03-FM-1361,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Delay in receiving transcript of hearing on motion to modify child support did not adversely affected husband's rights where husband was made aware trial court would not approve proposed reconstructed statement within six weeks. Judge's refusal to recuse himself was not error as order reflected neither personal bias nor prejudice against husband.
|
|||||
| McAteer v. Lauterbach, No. 06-CV-976,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 12, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Nonfinal order by a trial court cancelling notices of lis pendens, which were filed pursuant to D.C. Code § 42-1207, was appealable, even though it was not a final order under D.C. Code § 11-721(a)(1), because the appellate court had jurisdiction to proceed in the appeal under the collateral order doctrine.
|
|||||
| In re Jumper, NOS. 04-PR-1470 & 05-PR-338,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award of sanctions under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 11 was reversed due to noncompliance with the rule's safe harbor provision in that the sanctioned parties were not given notice and a chance to withdraw or correct challenged papers. The case was remanded as the trial court also made no express finding of bad faith to support the award.
|
|||||
| Pannu v. Jacobson, No. 04-CV-303,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In a medical malpractice action, it was incumbent upon the trial court to give the jury a fair and accurate statement of the law of negligence, in the context of a case involving neurological surgery. The court's failure to give an instruction consistent with the appropriate legal principles was an erroneous exercise of discretion.
|
|||||
| Unfoldment, Inc. v. D.C. Contract Appeals Bd., No. 02-AA-970,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 19, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board's decision to deny a services provider's bad faith and breach of contract claims against the District of Columbia Child and Family Services Agency was reversed and remanded as the Board did not construe the total contract. Thus, it erred by finding that the contract had no minimum placement requirement.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
