 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Lee v. United States, No. 03-CF-1319,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 6, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Conviction for second-degree murder while armed was reversed and remanded for a new trial because the trial judge's refusal to instruct on mitigating circumstances denied defendant the proper legal framework within which to have the jury evaluate the evidence of heat of passion caused by adequate provocation.
|
|||||
| Wasserman v. District of Columbia, Nos. 07-CT-741, 07-CT-742,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 6, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although issued a day early, a Commissioners' order did not void a dog-leash regulation fully authorized on the day it became effective; because the order imposed no duty or prohibition until its effective date, defendant's technical and unwarranted application of the voidness doctrine did not overcome the presumptive validity of the regulation.
|
|||||
| Hamilton v. Howard Univ., No. 06-CV-916,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 13, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Actual decisionmakers were not shown to have had either retaliatory or discriminatory reasons for terminating decedent's employment and, thus, no violation of District of Columbia Human Rights Act, D.C. Code § 2-1401.01 et seq. was shown; too, proper proof was not offered of violation of her District of Columbia Family and Medical Leave Act rights.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. United States, No. 05-CF-1000,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 13, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Exclusion of seemingly irrelevant testimony (Fed. R. Evid. 403) about defendant's mother's rape in a homicide trial was not an abuse of discretion. Trial court attempted to balance defendant's right to explain his state of mind and reasons supporting that state of mind against potential for the testimony to appeal unfairly to the jury's sympathies.
|
|||||
| Goba v. District of Columbia, Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 07-AA-597,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 20, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Workers' compensation claimant was denied attorney's fees under D.C. Code § 32-1530(a) because she did not dispute the administrative determination that there was no evidence that the claimant's employer or its carrier declined at any time to pay compensation for any reason other than the need to verify the nature and amount of the benefits sought.
|
|||||
| Howard Univ. Hosp. v. Dep't of Empl. Servs., Nos. 04-AA-397, 04-AA-399, 07-AA-784 & 07-AA-785,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 20, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Physician's claim for disability compensation was barred by failure to give timely notice of injury to hospital; failure was not excused under D.C. Code § 32-1513(d), as treating physician was not hospital's agent for notice purposes. Physician was not entitled to vocational rehabilitation benefits as she suffered no wage loss and was not disabled.
|
|||||
| In re Schulman, No. 08-BG-419 & 08-BG-867,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 20, 2008, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
| Mamo v. Skvirsky, No. 06-CV-306,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 20, 2008, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment award to landlords in a commercial tenant's specific performance action was vacated and the case was remanded because a provision in the parties' lease entitling the tenant to match third-party offers for the landlords' building was ambiguous and reasonably may have been construed as granting the tenant a right of first refusal.
|
|||||
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. |
