 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Bagenstose v. D.C. Office of Emple. Appeals, No. 04-CV-780,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Substantial evidence in the record supported the office of employee appeal's decision that found it lacked jurisdiction to review employee's reduction-in-force (RIF) claim because he chose to retire rather than be terminated due to the RIF, and, thus, the appellate court upheld the trial court's denial of his petition for review of the decision.
|
|||||
| In re Gizzarelli, No. 04-BG-340,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Under the rebuttable presumption in D.C. Bar R. 11, ¿ 11(f) that favored identical reciprocal discipline, the court ordered an attorney suspended for five years with proof of fitness as a condition of reinstatement where he was suspended indefinitely in Massachusetts with the ability to petition for reinstatement after five years.
|
|||||
| Liuksila v. Stoll, No. 03-FM-1226,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 8, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Acknowledged father waited too long to challenge jurisdiction of German agency to enter child support order, so it was properly enforceable under District of Columbia's Uniform Interstate Family Support Act. Trial court had discretion to interpret German order as requiring payment of all arrearages immediately.
|
|||||
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. |
