 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Burtoff v. Faris, Nos. 06-CV-407, 06-CV-810,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Personal representative's legal malpractice suit was barred by the three year statute of limitations under D.C. Code § 12-301(8) because the representative showed no basis for excusing the untimeliness of his suit under the continuous representation rule as his allegations in a prior law suit showed that he was aware of a possible cause of action.
|
|||||
| Flax v. Schertler, No. 06-CV-37,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Summary judgment award to lawyers in a malpractice case was reversed and remanded as to a personal representative's fraud claims only because the trial court too narrowly construed or overlooked some of the representative's allegations regarding the lawyers' failure to bring an alternative fraud-related claim or claims in the underlying litigation.
|
|||||
| In re Christenson, No. 06-BG-280,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: In an identical reciprocal discipline matter under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11, an attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a one-year period, most of which was stayed, with conditional reinstatement, as there were no exceptions to the recommendation and no mitigating circumstances.
|
|||||
| In re Grossman, No. 06-BG-123,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: As an attorney's suspension from the practice of law in Massachusetts was based, in part, on her intentional misrepresentations, which conduct warranted disbarment in the District of Columbia, the Board on Professional Responsibility's substantially different reciprocal discipline recommendation of disbarment was adopted under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11.
|
|||||
| In re Weiss, No. 06-BG-122,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for five years, which was identical reciprocal discipline as had been imposed by Virginia, as there was no evidence that such sanction was inappropriate and the recommendation by the Board on Professional Responsibility was unopposed under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(f).
|
|||||
| Longus v. United States, No. 06-CM-252,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction for simple assault was reversed, as his daughter testified that she did not suffer physical injuries, and defendant's actions did not expose her to substantial risk of significant injury or significant pain, physical or psychological. It was not unreasonable for the trial court to find that a disciplinary purpose existed.
|
|||||
| Vines v. Mfrs. & Traders Trust Co., No. 06-CV-882,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Appellate court lacked jurisdiction to hear owner's appeal of orders granting possession to bank's successor and denying the owner's motion for reconsideration under D.C. Ct. App. R. 3(c)(1)(B) because owner's notice of appeal stated that she was appealing only order granting summary judgment for successor on her wrongful foreclosure claim.
|
|||||
| Walters v. United States, Nos. 03-CF-539 & 03-CF-597,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 15, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: There was no plain error under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Crim. P. 30 by a trial court's erroneous instruction under the Wilson-Bey holding regarding defendants' liability for specific intent crimes of assault with intent to rob and robbery, as defendants' substantial rights were not affected and the evidence supported a finding of their specific intent.
|
|||||
| Veney v. United States, Nos. 04-CF-353 & 06-CO-543,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 16, 2007, Filed
View this case - free |
|||||
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
