 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Hawkins v. W. R. Berkley Corp., No. 05-CV-14,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Because it was unclear whether a trial court had personal jurisdiction over a holding company, the trial court erred in declining to determine whether there was personal jurisdiction over the company before granting summary judgment on the merits.
|
|||||
| In re Angel, Nos. 03-BG-1090 & 04-BG-1486,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: When an attorney was publicly reprimanded and suspended from the practice of law for five years in another state, with reinstatement conditioned on fitness, and did not contest imposing this reciprocal discipline, a presumption that such discipline should be imposed, under D.C. Bar. R. XI, ¿ 11(f), was not rebutted, and the discipline was imposed.
|
|||||
| In re Gruber, Nos. 04-BG-1 & 04-BG-243,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Given that Bar Counsel recommended reciprocal disbarment and an attorney did not oppose it, disbarment under D.C. Bar R. XI, ¿ 11 (f)(1) was not so excessive as to be grossly unjust based on the attorney's misconduct in New Jersey of dishonesty and misappropriation of a client's funds for his personal use.
|
|||||
| In re Soininen, No. 05-BG-470,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an attorney violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 1.1(a), (b), 1.5 (a), 1.15(a), and 8.4(d) in representing an estate, based on an attorney's substantial efforts to rehabilitate herself and her apparent contrition, the attorney's disbarment was stayed in favor of a three-year period of monitored and conditional probation.
|
|||||
| Kramer Assocs. v. Ikam, Ltd., No. 03-CV-1251,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Trial court did not err in finding president did not do any meaningful work on project he and consulting firm were involved with and, thus, appellate court had to accept that finding as correct pursuant to D.C. Code Ann. ¿ 17-305(a); it followed that it was unjust for consulting firm to retain advance payment, and restitution was properly ordered.
|
|||||
| Lipscombe v. Crudup, No. 04-CV-931,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although a pastor's alleged defamation was made in response to a church member's statement that the pastor had mishandled church finances, the member alleged facts sufficient to take the case outside the constitutional bar raised by the First Amendment; therefore, the trial court properly denied the pastor's motion to dismiss.
|
|||||
| Owen v. Bd. of Dirs. , Nos. 04-CV-908, 04-CV-1004, 04-CV-1271,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 22, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Based on contemporaneous documents and parties' course of dealing, it was clear that ch. 88, 6 Stat. 381 (1828) created children's charity with dual governance system to avoid married women's disabilities, and that originally all-female board of directors had powers equal to those of originally all-male board of trustees.
|
|||||
| In re Marlen, No. 04-BG-478,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney whose two-year suspension from Texas Bar had been stayed subject two-year probationary period received identical sanction in District of Columbia proceeding, but failure to promptly report Texas proceeding to District Bar Counsel as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, ¿ 11(b) precluded disciplinary periods from running concurrently.
|
|||||
| Wash. Canoe Club v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n, No. 04-AA-463,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 30, 2005, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The District of Columbia Zoning Commission did not err in approving zoning classification, special exceptions, and variances which would allow applicants to build a boathouse on property as the findings and conclusions supporting those decisions were not arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion and were supported by substantial evidence.
|
|||||
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. |
