 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Estate of Green v. Loewinger, No. 03-PR-246,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Award for sums the first successor personal representative owed the estate was affirmed because the representative breached his fiduciary duty to the estate under D.C. Code § 20-701(a) by entering into a side agreement for an additional fee with seven of the decedent's heirs. The case was remanded for the recalculation of prejudgment interest.
|
|||||
| Freeman v. United States, No. 03-CF-1432,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Convictions for assault with intent to kill while armed and aggravated assault while armed were upheld as, inter alia, three witnesses testified that they saw defendant shoot the victim and "serious bodily injury" was shown where the victim suffered three gunshot wounds, including one which broke a vertebra and lodged itself in the victim's body.
|
|||||
| In re Coles, Nos. 03-BG-415 & 04-BG-502,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia because the crimes of bribery and fraud for which the attorney was convicted in federal court unmistakably involved moral turpitude under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a), and the attorney's disbarment was mandatory under D.C. Code § 11-2503(a).
|
|||||
| In re Weisbard, No. 05-BG-514,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was reciprocally suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia for a period of 18 months because, pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c), the discipline imposed upon the attorney in another state was approved by the state's supreme court in multiple disciplinary proceedings only as to a proceeding imposing that discipline.
|
|||||
| In re Weisbard, No. 05-BG-514,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 21, 2006 *, Decided * This opinion was originally issued on December 21, 2006. See In re Weisbard, 912 A.2d 1178 (D.C. 2006). Upon consideration of appellant's post-decision petition, this opinion is being reissued in amended form.
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended in a reciprocal disciplinary proceeding from the practice of law in the District of Columbia under D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11 because the Colorado Supreme Court found that his conduct warranted the suspension. The attorney was not disbarred at that time from the District because a hearing board disbarred the attorney in Colorado.
|
|||||
| Johnson v. D.C. Office of Emple. Appeals, No. 04-CV-1095,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Employee who was hired as a member of the Excepted Service to be the deputy director of facilities and asset management for the school system had no right of appeal after he was terminated; clerical error did not transfer employee to Educational Service and thus, provided substantial evidence to support the OEA's decision.
|
|||||
| Thorn v. Walker, No. 05-CV-99,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Seller's appeal of the denial of her motion for a new trial under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 60(b) was dismissed as moot because, after the trial, the seller sold her property to the buyers as required by the trial court's final judgment and order. Moreover, there was no indication that the seller sought a stay or took other protective measures.
|
|||||
| Tillery v. D.C. Contract Appeals Bd., No. 04-AA-1363,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Decision of the District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board (CAB) was reversed because the CAB erred in interpreting an integrated contract in light of extrinsic evidence as the contract on its face unambiguously limited a telecommunications consultant's scope of work to a line and circuit audit instead of an equipment audit.
|
|||||
| Wilson v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., No. 04-CV-1113,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 21, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Transit Authority's motion for judgment as matter of law was properly granted where evidence did not support jury verdict in passenger's favor; given absence of facts giving rise to proximate causation, jury was left to speculate as to causation and draw impermissible inferences where there was no evidence orange soda was what passenger slipped on.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
