 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Goldschmidt v. Paley, Rothman, Goldstein, Rosenberg & Cooper, Chtd., No. 03-CV-1367, No. 04-CV-240, No. 04-CV-241, No. 04-CV-1118,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because the trial court's conclusion that a corporate officer's affidavits were not worth the paper they were written on was supported by a factual record replete with examples of his untrustworthiness, the D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60 motion to vacate the bad faith litigation judgment was properly denied.
|
|||||
| Hiligh v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 06-AA-51, NO. 06-AA-85,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Compensation Review Board properly held, based on legislative history, that the minimum compensation rate of D.C. Code § 32-1505(c) did not apply to TTD claims. It was error, however, to hold that the rate should be the employee's average weekly wage, as D.C. Code § 32-1508(2) stated that 66 2/3 percent of average weekly wages should be paid.
|
|||||
| In re Maignan, No. 06-BG-26,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As a six-month suspension was within the range of sanctions the court had imposed for similar misconduct involving competence, commingling and misappropriation, disbursing client funds, and interfering with justice, as was found against an attorney in Maryland, the court adopted the Board on Professional Responsibility's recommendation.
|
|||||
| In re Richardson, No. 06-BG-412,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As the court found support in the record for the Board on Professional Responsibility's findings, it adopted the sanction the Board recommended. The attorney, who engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for six months with a requirement to prove fitness prior to reinstatement.
|
|||||
| K.H. v. R.H., No. 03-FM-477,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When a former wife's child was adjudicated neglected, it was error not to give the adjudication collateral estoppel effect in a custody action by the former husband, who was not the father. The basic requisites for collateral estoppel were met, and among other factors, the wife had had a full and fair opportunity to litigate the neglect action.
|
|||||
| McFarland v. George Wash. Univ., No. 03-CV-633,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an employee, an African-American man, was not promoted and was terminated in a reorganization, his discrimination claims under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act failed because he did not establish a prima facie case of racial or gender discrimination; his retaliation claims failed because he did not establish a causal connection.
|
|||||
| Murphy v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 05-AA-1335,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 8, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Compensation Review Board properly held that it did not have jurisdiction over the interpretation and enforcement of a CBA, under which an employee argued that he was entitled to recover for an injury found not to have arisen out of and in the course of employment. The jurisdiction of an agency could not be extended by agreement of the parties.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
