Case law

James A. Corbin v. United States

120 A.3d 588 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2015

In the absence of statutory language that clearly conveys the Council’s intent, we turn for guidance to the legislative history of the statute. … In particular, the Council mentioned the gruesome carjacking-homicide of Pamela Basu that drew national attention, and stated that the District was not immune from this nationwide surge. Id. at 2-3.

District of Columbia v. Estate of Parsons

590 A.2d 133 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 1991

that the phrase “and other personal property” is not a residuary clause, the District relies on the principles of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis. 5 *137 “[T]he doctrines of noscitur a sociis and ejusdem generis may qualify … following the phrase “contents of my apartment,” it is not an unreasonable reading of the sentence to say that the phrase “and other personal property” takes color from and is limited by the previous enumeration of property clearly

Cellular Radio Corp. v. OKI America, Inc.

664 A.2d 357 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 1995

When seeking summary judgment, “[t]he moving party bears the burden of clearly demonstrating the absence of a material factual dispute and entitlement to judgment as a matter of law.” Sherman v. … We qualified even that statement by limiting its application to “extreme and unusual circumstances.” 7 Id.

Wallace v. United States

936 A.2d 757 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2007

In other words, Pate established that a defendant is entitled to procedural due process to determine whether he is competent. … Hyde’s letter outlined appellant’s need for medical supervision while in custody and suggested that appellant’s brain damage qualified as “statutory mitigation in the sentencing proceedings.” 25 .

1827 M Street, Inc. v. District of Columbia

537 A.2d 1078 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1988

It was designated in 1968 as the District’s professional review committee so that the District might qualify for participation in the federal historic preservation program established in 1966. … In recent years the functions of the Joint Committee have been taken over by the Historic Preservation Review Board, established pursuant to D.C.Code § 5-1003 (1981).

Middleton v. United States

401 A.2d 109 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1979

The Court acknowledged the general applicability of the qualified privilege recognized in Hickman v. … But some things too clearly evince a legislative enactment to call for a redundancy of utterance. [360 U.S. at 350, 79 S.Ct. at 1223.] Mr.

In re Stanback

913 A.2d 1270 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 2006

Stanback clearly warranted a diagnosis of alcohol and probably cocaine dependence.” Id. at 10. … Petitioner took the ethics portion of the multi-state exam to qualify for reinstatement to the Virginia bar.

Vickery v. Garretson

527 A.2d 293 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 29, 1987

Vickery clearly slept on any rights flowing from the Maine lawsuit as Garret-son originally framed it. … See Burka, 400 A.2d at 741 (trial court’s determination of prejudice will be affirmed unless clearly erroneous).

Capitol Entertainment Services, Inc. v. McCormick

25 A.3d 19 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2011

negligence.’ ” Concluding that CES therefore had not met its burden of proving “misconduct” within the meaning of the unemployment compensation statute, the ALJ reversed the claims examiner’s determination and found McCormick qualified … See Chase, 804 A.2d at 1124 n. 12 ("The further conclusion that petitioner violated the employer’s rule concerning unsatisfactory job performance 'which was known to him’ does not clearly hold that the violation was even

Kaiser-Georgetown Community Health Plan, Inc. v. Stutsman

491 A.2d 502 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1985

bound to apply Virginia law here, we should choose to do so if, under our choice-of-law principles, we find that Virginia’s interest in this litigation is substantial, and that application of District law would frustrate a clearly … Code § 8.01-581.2, and under that section either the claimant or the provider may request a hearing before a medical review panel established in § 8.01-581.3.

Portillo v. United States

62 A.3d 1243 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2013

Under the plain-error standard of review, “we will reverse [appellant’s] conviction only if the misconduct so clearly prejudiced his substantial rights as to jeopardize the fairness and integrity of his trial.” … "Courts can meet this obligation by appointment of an appropriately qualified bilingual professional or appointment and payment of interpreter services to facilitate the communication process.”

Dean v. District of Columbia

653 A.2d 307 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1995

See An Act to Establish a Code of Law for the District of Columbia, 31 Stat. 1189 , ch. 854 (1901). … If Bill 1-89 had become law, same-sex marriages clearly would have been authorized in the District.

Fallen v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2023

Thus, Bado reasoned that “[l]ike incarceration, deportation separates a person from established ties to family, work, study, and community. . . . … Misdemeanor child sexual abuse is the only misdemeanor to qualify as a Class B registration offense—all other Class B offenses are punishable by at least five years of imprisonment, and all Class C registration offenses

Frye v. United States

926 A.2d 1085 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 2005

respect to each other; (3) the evidence had been proven clearly and convincingly; and (4) the probative value of the evidence outweighed its prejudicial effect. … Here, the trial court found the complainant’s testimony concerning appellant’s prior misconduct was established clearly and convincingly.

Newspapers, Inc. v. Metropolitan Police Department

546 A.2d 990 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 1988

[T]he sovereign power of this qualified State is not lodged in the corporation of the District of Columbia, but in the government of the United States. Its supreme legislative body is Congress.” Metropolitan R.R. … The bill as first introduced contained a general mandate of disclosure subject to only three exemptions: (1) trade secrets, (2) disclosures of a personal nature that would amount to a clearly unwarranted invasion of privacy

Kaliku v. United States

994 A.2d 765 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 13, 2010

Her testimony clearly tied each man to Ms. Hill’s DNA. … Therefore, defense counsel’s attempts to establish Ms.

Drake v. McNair

993 A.2d 607 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2010

Drake died on July 29, 1995, of complications from acquired immune deficiency syndrome (AIDS), a disease which he had previously transmitted to Mrs. Drake. Although estranged, Mr. and Mrs. … D.C. 396, 48 F.3d 1247 (1995), the District of Columbia Circuit qualified to some extent its holding in One-O-One.

In re H.C. K.C.

187 A.3d 1254 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2018

She did not know why she qualified for her DDS services. K.C. also did not know why H.C. had been removed from her care. “They took my baby for no reason,” she said, “[a]nd it’s not right at all.” … “really struggled” with knowing how to comfort H.C. when the child was “clearly discomforted” or in distress. Ms.

Porter v. United States

37 A.3d 251 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2012

It is well established that under certain circumstances the police may seize evidence in plain view without a warrant. … While the Court, earlier in the Kimmelman opinion, discussed a defendant’s burden to establish both prongs of a *278 Strickland 9 violation it is when the Court is discussing the burden of establishing the constitutional

Lyons v. United States

622 A.2d 34 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1993

Clearly the statement should have been turned over. That’s number one. Number two, clearly it is not just disadvantageous but extremely prejudicial in that it is an outright denial of even being in Georgetown. … We therefore conclude that the trial court’s decision to admit Jones’s declaration through Officer Brown’s testimony was clearly erroneous. *48 V.