Case law

Off. of the People's Counsel for D.C. v. D.C. Public Serv. Comm'n.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2022

In short, our deference is contingent on the Commission “fully and clearly explain[ing] what it does and why it does it.” Id. (quoting Potomac Elec. Power Co. v. Pub. Serv. … Comm’n of D.C., 163 A.3d 735, 739 (D.C. 2017) (“To permit meaningful judicial review, we require the Commission to explain its actions fully and clearly.” (brackets omitted)).

Shane Tynique Evans & Ebony Ruffin v. United States

160 A.3d 1155 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 2017

Irrespective of the fact that Evans may have misrepresented the timing of the events, she still demonstrated knowledge of pertinent details that establish a link to the incident. … The parties debate whether the 911 call amounted to inadmissible hearsay or qualified under the excited utterance exception.

Brandywine Apartments, LLC v. McCASTER

964 A.2d 162 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2009

McCaster ever made The Brandywine aware that he was interested in renting the apartment by himself; on the contrary, the evidence clearly shows that Mr. McCaster and Ms. … Appellant has not challenged the adequacy of the evidence to establish a violation of the CPPA; we therefore do not review that judgment. 7 .

DARIC M. WILSON v. UNITED STATES.

140 A.3d 1212 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2016

Abubakar experienced do not qualify under the statute given the government’s failure to show “what—if any—treatment” Mr. … Code § 22-404 (a)(2).2 2 Another appeal involving the sufficiency of the evidence to establish felony assault is pending before a division of this court. Belt v.

Chase Plaza Condominium Association, Inc. and Darcy, LLC v. JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.

98 A.3d 166 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 2014

To qualify as an indispensable party, a person must either be necessary to grant complete relief to the parties or “claim[] an interest relating to the subject of the action.” Super. Ct. Civ. R. 19 (a). … Rather, we simply conclude that JPMorgan has failed to establish that it would be absurd or clearly unreasonable to interpret D.C.

Whitaker v. United States

616 A.2d 843 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 1992

Clearly, it would have avoided some of the problems which the defense faced at trial. … Grafman’s testimony that (in the judge’s words) “he could not say with certainty that an additional neuropsychological evaluation could conclusively establish the level of [the complainant’s] recollection.”

Williams v. United States

421 A.2d 19 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1980

Whether Fisher’s testimony in fact would have established that appellant was not in possession of the gun, however, is purely a matter of conjecture. … § 4852.06. 8 .In deciding that § 24-201c relief is not the equivalent of a certificate of rehabilitation under § 14-305(b)(2)(A)(ii), we intimate no views as to what, if any, procedures in the District of Columbia might qualify

Yehuda Steiner v. American Friends of Lubavitch (Chaabad)

177 A.3d 1246 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2018

.‖ The trial court found that AFL and Rabbi Shemtov had clearly demonstrated all four prerequisites of a preliminary injunction. … The rule that emerged from this line of cases, sometimes referred to as constitutional immunity, see United Methodist Church, Baltimore Annual Conference v.

United States Parole Commission v. Noble

693 A.2d 1084 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 1997

Cooke’s opinion does qualify as a formal one, we have said that rulings of the Corporation Counsel “‘are entitled to weight as construction of the District of Columbia Code unless plainly unreasonable or contrary to ascertainable … This court held that the District's reliance on that opinion in failing to apply the regulations to the shooter was a discretionary, policy decision that, under the doctrine of sovereign immunity, protected the District against

Goto v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

423 A.2d 917 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1980

California, 478 F.2d 552, 555 (9th Cir. 1973) (motion of food stamp applicants to add other plaintiffs properly denied when original plaintiffs were not qualified to represent class). … The courts, however, have established a narrow exception to this rule.

In re Gaither

626 A.2d 920 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 1993

As we have said, the record clearly demonstrates that the February 27 hearing was dispositional in nature, in accordance with Mental Health Rule 6. … Nevertheless, in this case as in Mills, the hospital “assumed the burden of establishing the need for inpatient treatment; and the court, upon considering the evidence ... specifically concluded that hospitalization was the

Grant v. Cooke

7 D.C. 165 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 11, 1871

Dwarris, in his chapter on qualified interpretation, uses the following language: “In construing acts of Parliament, judges are to look at the language of the whole act, and if they find in any particular clause an expression … Marbury are clearly not executive acts.

Baltimore v. District of Columbia

10 A.3d 1141 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 2011

To have a property interest in a government benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for [the benefit]. He must have more than a unilateral expectation of it. … Nor has the District’s legislature established a statutory right of the homeless in the HSRA to a hearing before a shelter is closed.

In re T.L.L.

729 A.2d 334 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 13, 1999

United States, 558 A.2d 312, 319 (D.C. 1989) (en banc): For flight to suggest consciousness of guilt — a mentality other than a legitimate desire to avoid the police — that flight not only must be very clearly in response … The prosecution established that Arkansas officers had received a tip from police in Missouri, but offered no evidence as to the source of the Missouri officers’ information.

Nader v. De Toledano

408 A.2d 31 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 1979

This test was deemed unacceptable because of its suggestion that immunity from liability disappears on proof that the exercise of ordinary care would have revealed that the statement was false. … The contract between Copley and de Toledano is clearly that of an independent contractor. See generally 41 Am.Jur.2d Independent Contractors, §§ 1-10 (2d ed. 1968).

Bell v. United States

871 A.2d 1199 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 2005

Evidence at trial, including the testimony of Willard Jackson (“the only government witness who directly implicated [appellant] in the crime,” as the trial judge later observed), established appellant’s complicity in the … United States, 639 A.2d 92, 95 (D.C.1994) (applying “clearly erroneous” review standard to trial court’s rejection of alleged newly discovered evidence as inherently incredible); we attach the relevant portions of that ruling

Hackney v. United States

389 A.2d 1336 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1978

A judge is an Article III judge depending upon his responsibilities and upon the presence or absence of life tenure and an immunity from diminution of compensation. Cf. *1340 Glidden Company v. … Furthermore, the evidence clearly supported an instruction on first-degree murder. Appellant does not contend an absence of premeditation and deliberation on his part.

JAIYEOLA v. District of Columbia

40 A.3d 356 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2012

Establishment of a Prima Facie Case The District argues that we should affirm the award of summary judgment on a ground the trial court did not reach: namely, that appellant could not establish a prima facie case that he … Among the reasons cited for this propo *373 sition are that the issues are not ripe for consideration, not clearly presented by the record or simply because it would be better to leave to the trial court the task of sifting

Smart Aziken v. DC

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2018

. _______________ 3 There are several conditions that the conversion must meet to qualify for the tax exemption: (A) The interest holders of the converted entity are identical to … (noting that reliance was unreasonable where statute “clearly provides that only the three enumerated categories of [] entities are eligible”).

Langdon v. Evans

14 D.C. 1 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1883

The law of this subject is very clearly expounded in the case of Sickles vs. Packet Co., 5 Wallace, 580. … bill of exceptions then says, “ and it becoming important and material to prove whether the said defendant had not, after discovering the character of said representations, used the said lands so deeded to his wife, to qualify