 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Colbert v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 06-AA-323,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Department ruled that by submitting third party suit to arbitration, claimant "compromised" claim, within meaning of D.C. Code § 32-1535(g), without employer's notice or approval, and thus could not receive workers' compensation benefits. As department's interpretation of "compromise" to include arbitration was reasonable, its order was affirmed.
|
|||||
| In re Estate of Reilly, No. 06-PR-320,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a decedent's stepchildren sued the trustee of a trust created by their father, seeking the imposition of a constructive trust on the assets of the trust, which was modified by the decedent, the statute of frauds in D.C. Code § 28-3503 (2001) did not bar the suit because the statute of frauds never barred the imposition of a constructive trust.
|
|||||
| In re Kraft, No. 06-BG-483,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney, who had been disbarred in New Jersey for knowingly misappropriating client funds, was disbarred due to rebuttable presumption favoring identical reciprocal discipline, and considering the heightened deference given to District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation in cases where no exceptions were filed.
|
|||||
| Parnigoni v. District of Columbia, No. 04-CT-1378,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 11, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for two counts of indecent exposure was upheld, as D.C. Code § 22-1312 was not unconstitutionally vague and evidence supported conviction; among other things, specific intent to expose oneself to specific person was not required, defendant intended to expose himself, and father's testimony supported finding he saw defendant's genitalia.
|
|||||
| In re Sobin, No. 05-CT-522,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for criminal contempt, in violation of D.C. Code § 16-1005(f) (2001), was based on sufficient evidence where he communicated with his son's counsel and asked her to contact his son, although a civil protection order prohibited defendant from contacting the son, either directly or indirectly through a third party.
|
|||||
| Mamo v. D.C., Nos. 06-CV-845 & 06-CV-1007,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, October 18, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A franchisee was not entitled to compensation for loss of his business when the District of Columbia took the land it was operated on because, absent a statutory provision, he was not entitled to such compensation and D.C. Code § 16-1311 et seq. (2001) allowed no such compensation, nor was he entitled to part of compensation paid the land's owner.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
