 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Cullen v. United States, No. 04-CM-1105,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because two of defendant's convictions under D.C. Code Ann. § 22-3006 (2001) for kissing a victim's inner thigh and breast during a short interval constituted a continuous course of conduct and because a third conviction for kissing the victim's thigh on another occasion was not proven, the three convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.
|
|||||
| Duckett v. United States, No. 03-CM-1462,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court erred in denying defendant's D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 12 motion to suppress evidence as police officer lacked a reasonable, articulable suspicion that defendant was violating the law when the officer stopped his vehicle and, thus, recovery of marijuana from defendant's car and jacket should have been suppressed.
|
|||||
| Dunne v. United States, Nos. 03-CM-1542 & 04-CO-1173,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 17, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because defendant's menacing gesture threatened an offensive touching, the evidence was sufficient to convict him of "intent-to-frighten" assault under D.C. Code Ann. § 22-404; defendant was not prejudiced, inter alia, by a law student's authorized practice under D.C. Ct. App. R. 48 and D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 44-I.
|
|||||
| Barrie v. United States, No. 02-CF-319,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Suppression of evidence was properly denied where police had probable cause to conduct warrantless search and seizure that preceded arrest based on information provided by informant who had worked for police for approximately 20 years, previously provided accurate information, was continuously employed, and remained out of criminal justice system.
|
|||||
| In re Cater, No. 03-BG-624,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was found to have violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 5.3(b) by completely delegating her fiduciary duties as a conservator of two estates to her secretary and not reviewing any of the secretary's actions, which involved embezzling over $ 47,000 from the estates and signing the attorney's name to 34 checks.
|
|||||
| In re Wilkins, No. 04-BG-783,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 23, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since attorney's guilty plea to mail theft in violation of 18 U.S.C.S. § 1708 was conviction of offense involving moral turpitude, and since such an offense warranted disbarment under D.C. Code Ann. § 11-2503, court accepted board on professional responsibility's recommendation to impose reciprocal and identical discipline of disbarment.
|
|||||
| Harding v. D.C. Office of Emple. Appeals, No. 04-CV-1532,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals properly found that the District of Columbia Department of Corrections' failure to give an employee 30 days notice before separation was harmless error as the employee was awarded all pay that he would have received had he received 30 days notice.
|
|||||
| In re Cater, No. 04-BG-195,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because an attorney did not respond to inquiries from Bar Counsel or orders from the Board on Professional Responsibility about ethical complaints that were lodged against her, she violated D.C. Bd. Prof. Resp. R. 8.1(b), 8.4(d), and D.C. Bar R. XI, § 2(b)(3); therefore, the attorney was suspended for 90 days with a conditional reinstatement.
|
|||||
| Rivera v. Schlick, No. 02-CV-455,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Creditor who made loans to debtor to renovate property was not in business of lending money for purposes of loan shark statute, D.C. Code Ann. §§ 26-901(a) (2001), where he testified that neither he nor part-time real estate development company was in business of providing loans to anyone and that this was "first and last time" that he would do so.
|
|||||
| Trapps v. United States, No. 03-CF-856,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 1, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Evidence defendant knew drugs were being sold from his house, had obtained drugs from person selling them, and had been go between for transactions was sufficient to support denial of motion for judgment of acquittal. There was no error in charging jury twice with anti-deadlock instruction as neither instruction increased likelihood of coercion.
|
|||||
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. |
