 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Albright v. AARP Found., Civil Case No. 05-CA-6628,
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA, CIVIL DIVISION, October 27, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Former employer's and affiliated organization's motion for summary judgment on a former employee's claims under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act was denied because the employee raised sufficient evidence to show that disputes existed regarding her claims of race discrimination and retaliation under the Act.
|
|||||
| Behradrezaee v. Dashtara, No. 03-CV-1297,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Order dismissing a stockholder's complaint in a derivative action under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 23.1 was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings because the stockholder met the pleading requirements of Rule 23.1. Further, the corporation and its principal were not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law.
|
|||||
| Headspeth v. United States, No. 05-CF-16,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction was reversed, and the case was remanded for a new trial because, under a plain error review standard as defendant failed to comply with D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 30 by objecting to re-instructions before the jury resumed deliberations, the trial court committed plain error in re-instructing and polling the jury.
|
|||||
| In re A.T.A., Nos. 04-FS-1046 & 04-FS-1047,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Granting of adoption petition by foster mother and denial of competing petition of mother's cousin was upheld as, inter alia, continuity of care was best served by allowing children to remain with foster mother, who was exceptionally suited to care for physical, mental, and emotional needs of children and willing to maintain familial relationships.
|
|||||
| In re Goldman, No. 05-BG-484,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia Court of Appeals, in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding, deferred to the discipline proposed by the District of Columbia Board on Professional Responsibility and suspended an attorney from the practice of law because he resigned from the New York Bar while he was the subject of an investigation for misconduct allegations.
|
|||||
| In re Greenspan, Nos. 02-BG-1350 and 04-BG-73,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Reciprocal disciplinary proceedings against two attorneys who were members of the bar in the District of Columbia were dismissed because neither the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers nor the Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland was a disciplining court under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(a). Therefore, reciprocal discipline could not be imposed.
|
|||||
| Long v. United States, Nos. 98-CF-1088, 98-CF-1425 & 04-CO-1503,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 9, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court abused discretion in denying D.C. Code § 23-110 motion for new trial without a hearing. Alleged alibi testimony, if credible, would have been highly material and undermined prosecution's case. It could not be said evidence was so strong there could be no reasonable probability exculpatory evidence could have raised reasonable doubt.
|
|||||
| In re Mooers, No. 06-BG-551,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 16, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred because he intentionally misappropriated client funds and engaged in dishonest conduct in violation of D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.15(a) and 8.4(c). However, disbarment was stayed because he was entitled to mitigation, and he was to serve probation subject to the imposition of conditions regarding his treatment for depression.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
