 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Dorchester House Assocs., Ltd. P'shp v. D.C. Rental Hous. Comm'n, Nos. 04-AA-1099 and 04-AA-1324,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission's order dismissing a landlord's petition with prejudice was reversed, and the case was remanded for further proceedings as the Commission erred in applying D.C. Super. Ct. R. Civ. P. 41 under the circumstances of the case after the landlord moved to have its petition be dismissed without prejudice.
|
|||||
| In re Tanner, No. 06-BG-278,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was suspended from the practice of law in the District of Columbia in a reciprocal proceeding for a period of five years because his conduct in the State of Utah violated D.C. R. Prof. Conduct 3.3(a), 3.4(b), and 8.4. Further, there was no basis for any exception set forth in D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(c) to apply.
|
|||||
| In re Turner, No. 06-BG-1046,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Attorney was reinstated to District of Columbia Bar pursuant to D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d), where, inter alia, court found he demonstrated by clear and convincing evidence that he recognized the seriousness of his misconduct and in effect demonstrated sufficient remorse for that conduct, and the attorney continually made effort to pay restitution.
|
|||||
| NGOM v. D.C. Dep't of Empl. Servs., No. 05-AA-888,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where there existed no basis for rejecting the opinions of a claimant's treating physicians that confirmed the claimant's back pain and the ALJ found the claimant's testimony that he left two jobs due to his back pain credible, the ALJ's decision denying workers' compensation benefits to the claimant was reversed on appeal.
|
|||||
| Thomas v. United States, No. 03-CF-1125,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 28, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The Confrontation Clause was violated in appellant's trial for distributing cocaine when the prosecution introduced a chemist's written expert report, pursuant to D.C. Code § 48-905.06, without calling the chemist to appear and testify in person. However, the error did not seriously affect the fairness, integrity or public reputation of the trial.
|
|||||
| In re Stanback, No. 06-BG-1045,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 29, 2006, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: A disbarred attorney had proven by clear and convincing evidence that he met the requirements of D.C. Bar R. XI, § 16(d) for reinstatement. He apologized to and made restitution to his former clients, had taken control of his financial obligations, and established a good work routine and favorable reputation in the area of rehabilitation.
|
|||||
Back to Top
| www.lexisnexis.com | About LexisNexis | Terms & Conditions | Customer Support | Sitemap | Contact Us |
| CopyrightŠ 2008 LexisNexis® All rights reserved. |
