 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Brizill v. D.C. Bd. of Elections & Ethics, No. 06-CV-686,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Dismissal of citizens' challenge to an initiative the District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics approved was reversed and remanded for judgment to the citizens as approval of the initiative would have violated 15 U.S.C.S. § 1175 and exceeded the legislative powers under the District of Columbia Home Rule Act, D.C. Code § 1-201.01 et seq.
|
|||||
| Darden v. D.C. Dep't of Emple. Servs., No. 05-AA-365,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suspension of an employee's temporary total disability workers' compensation benefits under D.C. Code § 32-1507(d) was affirmed because the employee unreasonably refused to participate in vocational rehabilitation. However, the matter was remanded for administrative consideration of whether the employee cured her refusal to cooperate.
|
|||||
| Hard Rock Cafe' v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 05-AA-1218,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia Department of Employment Services's order that an employer pay an employee a 20 percent penalty under D.C. Code § 32-1515(f) for the late payment of a worker's compensation settlement payment was affirmed as the payment to the employee was made outside the statutory 10-day period because of a clerical error.
|
|||||
| In re James, No. 05-BG-314,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred in the District of Columbia in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding as he presented no evidence to rebut the presumption under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f)(2) in favor of imposing identical reciprocal discipline. As a result of the attorney's failure to file a brief, the matter was scheduled only on the report and recommendation.
|
|||||
| Lumpkins v. CSL Locksmith, LLC, No. 05-CV-1085,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 22, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Grant of summary judgment was affirmed because a termination provision in a signed lease unambiguously supported the tenant's right to remain in a building, so that a prior unsigned, differing version of that provision in an earlier draft of the lease was inadmissible to impeach it.
|
|||||
| Denson v. United States, No. 04-CF-1167,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 28, 2006, Decided ** The decision in this case was originally issued as an unpublished Memorandum Opinion and Judgment. At the request of the appellee, it is being published as an opinion.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: While the imposition of a condition prohibiting contact with minors might be a predictable part of defendant's supervised release, it was not part of the sentence and did not have an impact on the range of the punishment; therefore, the trial court properly denied defendant's D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 11(c)(1) motion to withdraw his guilty plea.
|
|||||
| Giles v. Crawford Edgewood Trenton Terrace, No. 04-CV-1122,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Denial of tenant's motion to show cause why a landlord should not be held in civil contempt for violating a consent order was reversed, and the case remanded for a hearing on the motion because the trial court abused its discretion by basing its decision on a misunderstanding of the law as civil contempt could be used for compensatory purposes.
|
|||||
| In re Slavin, No. 05-BG-885,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended in a reciprocal proceeding from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of two years, although he could apply for readmission after one year, because no basis for any exception set forth in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c) applied and the attorney did not file an exception to the Report and Recommendation.
|
|||||
| Lindsey v. United States, Nos. 99-CF-1295, 99-CF-1670, 03-CO-1283 and 03-CO-1286,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 30, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Admission of first inmate's confession was not error as, inter alia, Miranda was not necessary for inmate who was not in custody and right to counsel invoked five years earlier no longer adhered. Government's failure to make proper disclosures did not prejudice second inmate, who was provided impeaching evidence in time to make use of it at trial.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
