 |
|
 |
|
|
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.
| Donte v. United States, No. 04-CF-1255,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Although an aiding and abetting charge was plain error, reversal was not required because there was no reasonable probability that it had a prejudicial effect on the outcome of the murder trial. A jury could infer premeditation and deliberation from the evidence, including defendant's pointing a gun at the victim while others approached with guns.
|
|||||
| Hilarion v. D.C., Nos. 05-CT-729 & 05-CT-730,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as operating while impaired in violation of D.C. Code § 50-1401.01(d) was a strict liability offense that did not require scienter. The District did not have to prove that defendant knew his Virginia driver's license had been suspended.
|
|||||
| In re Howard, No. 07-BG-75,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: The attorney was publicly censured for failing to report his public reprimand in Florida after his stipulation to, and execution of, a conditional guilty plea for consent judgment, as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(b). The attorney had improperly threatened that he would report opposing counsel and his client to the police and Bar authorities.
|
|||||
| In re M.L.P., Nos. 04-FS-366 & 04-FS-367, Nos. 04-FS-581 & 04-FS-582, Nos. 04-FS-583 & 04-FS-584,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Where it was in children's best interests for adoption decrees to stand, a trial court's denial of a biological mother's motion under D.C. Super. Ct. R. Adoption Proc. 60, seeking to invalidate the adoption decrees due to the adoptee's failure to have disclosed her marriage pursuant to D.C. Code § 16-302 (1981), was proper.
|
|||||
| Nero v. District of Columbia, No. 06-CT-269,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, November 29, 2007, Decided
View this case - free |
|||||
Overview: Judgment was affirmed as counsel waived defendant's claims under Double Jeopardy Clause as counsel's motion for mistrial was within counsel's discretion since defendant tested positive for phencyclidine (PCP) while on witness stand, and counsel and trial court observed that defendant was likely under influence of drugs.
|
|||||
| Steele Founds., Inc. v. Clark Constr. Group, Inc., Nos. 04-CV-555 & 04-CV-756,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS, December 13, 2007, Decided
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. |
