 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Allman v. Snyder, No. 04-CV-424,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: An assignment of a tenancy was allowable under the Tenant Opportunity to Purchase Act (TOPA), D.C. Code Ann. § 42-3404.02 et seq., and since the negotiation period had expired, the owner of an apartment building had the discretion of choosing to accept the offer of an assignee over another tenant's offer.
|
|||||
| In re Gansler, No. 03-BG-1345,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where an attorney was reprimanded in a Maryland disciplinary proceeding for making improper statements in his role as a prosecutor, and he failed to show by clear and convincing evidence that his misconduct did not violate D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 3.8(f) under a reciprocal discipline proceeding, he was publicly censured.
|
|||||
| In re Ponds, No. 04-BG-27,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Five-year delay, where there had been no showing of resultant prejudice to District of Columbia attorney subject to disciplinary proceedings, did not amount to such unique and compelling circumstances as to justify no actual suspension at all where attorney was found to have continued to represent client despite conflict of interest.
|
|||||
| In re Reis, No. 04-BG-374,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since the professional responsibility board reviewed the foreign proceeding sufficiently to satisfy itself that no obvious miscarriage of justice would result, and the attorney did not display an opposition to identical discipline, the appellate court ordered that he be disbarred in the District of Columbia, just as he was disbarred in New York.
|
|||||
| United States v. Jenkins, No. 05-CO-333,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since there was no scientific disagreement about the methodology, mechanics, or mathematics involved in determining various statistical probabilities of DNA matches, such evidence was not subject to exclusion under Frye; the relevance of particular probabilities was another matter, properly determinable by a court.
|
|||||
| Wemhoff v. District of Columbia, No. 04-CV-1310,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Since D.C. Code Ann. § 2-534(6) did not authorize the disclosure of personal information from motor vehicle records for the purpose of soliciting clients as the Driver's Privacy Protection Act, 18 U.S.C.S. § 2721 et seq., prohibited such disclosure and use, the attorney was not entitled to that information under D.C. Code Ann. § 2-531 et seq.
|
|||||
| Williams v. United States, No. 04-CM-1089,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 15, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Defendant's conviction of assault in violation of D.C. Code Ann. § 22-404 (2001) was remanded for further consideration, because the trial judgment failed to make a finding of whether defendant intended to hit a police officer with a thrown shoe after defendant removed the shoe while being booked on another charge.
|
|||||
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. |
