Case law

Holderbaum v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters Retirement & Relief Board

579 A.2d 213 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1990

In Wells, supra, while reaffirming that “[a] petitioner must ... establish disability from performing any job in the category [i.e., in his grade or class] before qualifying for retirement,” 459 A.2d at 138 , quoting Seabolt … As suggested above, a finding of malingering in 1985 would not, by itself, prove that petitioner was feigning the degree of his disability in the period immediately before his termination, but it clearly would be relevant

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department v. Porter

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2025

of ‘convicted’ as meaning the establishment of guilt.” … Porter’s 2015 probation before judgment disposition is itself a qualifying “conviction.”

Vk v. Child and Family Services Agency

14 A.3d 628 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2011

private organizations working directly with children, for the purpose of making employment decisions regarding employees and volunteers or prospective employees and volunteers” upon a request that is “made in writing and clearly … with a cord. 15 However, CFSA did not present medical testimony that the scars were consistent with E.K’s having been hit with a cord, 16 and the hearing officer agreed with petitioner’s counsel that Brown had “not been qualified

Wallace v. Eckert, Seamans, Cherin & Mellott, LLC

57 A.3d 943 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2012

To establish a ‘prima facie case of disability discrimination under the Act, a plaintiff must first establish that he or she has a disability for which reasonable accommodation can be made. Grant v. … In order to establish a prima facie case of discriminatory discharge under the Human Rights Act, Dr.

Harrison v. United States

76 A.3d 826 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2013

Harrison’s counsel, who was uniquely qualified to do so, did not question the accuracy of the facts noticed by the court. Appellant does not dispute the legal relevance of those facts. … This evidence is sufficient to establish AWIKWA. See Freeman v. United States, 912 A.2d 1213, 1219 (D.C.2006).

Rocha-Guzmán v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

170 A.3d 170 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2017

The standard the CRB must apply in reviewing compensation orders is well established. … (providing that in administrative proceedings a qualified interpreter “shall” be appointed “upon the request of the communication-impaired person”).

Allen v. Schultheiss

981 A.2d 610 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2009

These two sections address different issues — the types of estates in land and the manner of joint ownership — and in no way qualify or restrict each other. … Appellant, we note, does not argue that the 1982 deed is ambiguous; rather, she claims that it clearly gave her the interests she asserts.

Santos v. George Washington University Hospital

980 A.2d 1070 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 2009

Johnson argue that, because they were not sued until January 31, 2006, even if arguably the cause of action accrued somewhat after June 22, 2002, the suit is clearly time-barred as to them. … Our case law makes "some evidence of wrongdoing” essential in establishing when a malpractice cause of action accrues.

In Re AW

569 A.2d 168 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1990

The Council responded to the problem by establishing a "separate and distinct" proceeding. … That likelihood need not be established as a prerequisite to termination in the first place.

McKinley v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

696 A.2d 1377 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1997

On appeal, McKinley challenges the examiner’s finding that his attack of ventricular tachycardia was not sufficiently work-related to qualify as an injury under the Workers’ Compensation Act. … McKinley’s testimony was certainly sufficient to trigger the presumption of compensability, because his testimony clearly established that the level of stress he had experienced as a result of Currence’s escalating attacks

Medina v. United States

61 A.3d 637 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 2013

United States, 863 A.2d 866, 873 (D.C.2004) (“Where there are two permissible views of the evidence, the factfinder’s choice between them cannot be clearly erroneous.” (quoting Anderson v. … (concluding that, at the point defense counsel moved for production of officer’s notes and established the existence of these notes, “the trial court should have investigated whether the police officer’s notes qualified as

The C.A. Harrison Companies, LLC v. Karen Evans and Charles Evans

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2022

It does not dispute the well-established proposition that a general contractor who oversees a home improvement project and is charged with “the actual ‘delivery’ of a finished project” is subject to this home improvement … The trial court clearly erred when it concluded otherwise, leading to its erroneous failure to limit its disgorgement award to the money actually paid to CAH.

Blagden Alley Ass'n v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission

590 A.2d 139 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 1991

Avenue. 16 Given the somewhat murky language of the Downtown Element (the area should undergo “careful change from commercial to residential emphasis”), we cannot agree with the Association that the Commission’s order is clearly … The Commission’s recent efforts to use housing linkage hardly qualify as a longstanding interpretation. 10 .

District of Columbia Fire & Emergency Medical Services Department v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board

105 A.3d 992 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2014

That is because Article 18 utilized the phrase “as permitted by law” to qualify the overtime provision in question. … are natural only where Congress is establishing “annually repeating requirements” as opposed to simply amending the law.

In re C. W. M.

407 A.2d 617 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 1979

holding, we are influenced by § 16-2319, which provides that after the factfinding hearing, the Division shall direct that a predisposi-tional study and report to the Division be made by the Director of Social Services or a qualified … In our view, these provisions clearly mandate that a predisposition report contain information relating to the child’s mental state at the time of the offense and also at the time of the disposition hearing to enable the

United House of Prayer for All People v. Therrien Waddell, Inc.

112 A.3d 330 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2015

―The project manual specified that the Project should qualify for LEED certification but did not specify which LEED credits would be pursued‖; during the meeting, the SRA representatives for the first time ―identified … That finding is not clearly erroneous.

Lopez v. United States

801 A.2d 39 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2002

In addition, an appellant must show that the alleged error is “ ‘so clearly prejudicial to substantial rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of the trial.’ ” Brown v. … In drawing these conclusions, defense counsel’s affidavit establishes that he relied on the files of Mr.

Crawford v. Katz

32 A.3d 418 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2011

“[A]n attorney will be qualified to testify as an expert in a legal malpractice action if [he or she] is a general legal practitioner who by training and experience is familiar with the degree of care and skill reasonably … Given the premise of his testimony, Professor Hazard clearly establishes several grounds on which Mr.

Carr v. United States

758 A.2d 944 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2000

Rather, under established case law, this was an appropriate police reaction of sorting out and clarifying the situation they confronted. See Pennsylvania v. … Accordingly, I would affirm the judgment of conviction. [3] NOTES [1] We defer to the motions court's findings of fact unless "clearly erroneous." Lawrence v. United States, 566 A.2d 57, 60 (D.C.1989).

Baker v. United States

891 A.2d 208 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2006

Baker’s act of sending letters to Boggs after he acknowledged that he understood the court’s order that he not have direct or indirect contact with her plainly qualifies as an act of “willful disobedience.” … First, the record clearly shows the damage to complainant’s vehicle totaled over $1300. Second, using black spray paint to inscribe obscenities on walls and on an automobile causes damage sufficient under the statute.