Case law

Benefits Communication Corp. v. Klieforth

642 A.2d 1299 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1994

After passing an examination that qualified her to sell securities, Klieforth was promoted to the position of “Employer Sponsored Specialist” selling retirement related registered insurance products and securities. … Time and again this court has observed that there is a well-established preference to arbitrate disputes when the parties have so agreed. See generally Carter v. Cathedral Ave.

Matter of JN

406 A.2d 1275 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1979

In my view, the issue is, once the evidence established that Mrs. … Clearly, the traditional concepts are not without limitations. To pull the plug on a victim is a unique act. It is an act intentionally done *1289 to shorten life.

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.

District of Columbia v. Catholic University of America

397 A.2d 915 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1979

In the broad context, the regulation clearly falls within the spirit of the Pub. L. No. 93-407. … The setting of criteria necessary to qualify for an exemption (section 133) is an integral part of the picture.

In re A.H.

842 A.2d 674 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 2004

She is somebody who clearly loves and cares for her children.... There’s no evidence that the children have been physically injured or abused.... … She testified that the H. children did not appear sick or malnourished; they had the required immunizations; they had clothing to wear; and the two children of school age were attending school. .

Snowder v. District of Columbia

949 A.2d 590 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2008

“Because it is in derogation of the common law principle of sovereign immunity, section 12-309 is to be construed narrowly against claimants.” Gross v. … Garrick’s father’s name at the time of notification, State Farm clearly exercised control over the vehicle. See Spindle v.

In re Stuart

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2023

Ryan as trustee even though she was aware that he was not qualified to serve under the terms of the trust. She  7 expected him to do whatever she asked him to do. … Stuart on this issue do not clearly support Ms. Stuart’s argument.

J.O. v. O.E.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2014

[did] not so clearly favor either side that [this court] [could] make such a  6 determination‖). … In the end, the ALJ summarized the evidence that ―clearly establishe[d] [Payne‘s] asthmatic condition pre-existed the incident of August 29, 2006‖ but weighed this against Payne by finding that because his symptoms preexisted

German v. United States

525 A.2d 596 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 7, 1987

The court qualified this stringent approach, however, by not requiring strict enforcement whenever the Rule’s “core concerns” are adequately addressed. Id.; see also McCarthy v. … United States, 384 A.2d 655, 660 (D.C.1978) (general standard for establishing entitlement to instruction); United States v.

Wallasey Tenants Ass'n, Inc. v. Varner

892 A.2d 1135 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 2006

At issue in West End was whether the Master Lease qualified as a sale under the Act. … The two situations are clearly distinguishable.

Bozzuto Management Co. v. Craig

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 2026

(citation modified)); see also Threatt, 907 A.2d at 782 n.3 (stating that Threatt “cannot succeed in his claim of wrongful eviction without nullifying the initial judgment or impairing rights established in the initial … Plaintiff is clearly a female,” and further found that service of process on a proxy of a defendant is improper under the L&T rules of process.

In re M.M.D.

662 A.2d 837 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1995

Section 16-312, which announces the “legal effects” of adoption, does not apply unless and until a petitioner qualifies for adoption under § 16-302, which prescribes “who may adopt.” … The court added that, by permitting adoption by an unmarried person, “the Legislature clearly sanctioned adoption into 'non-standard’ families.”

Peart v. District of Columbia Housing Authority

972 A.2d 810 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2009

Peart in establishing the facts and amount of the rent abatement. Ms. Peart thus conferred a two-fold benefit on DCHA: not only did Ms. … The trial court is clearly competent to consider Ms.

Barry Farm Tenants & Allies Ass'n v. DC Zoning Comm'n / A&R Dev. Corp

182 A.3d 1214 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2018

Williams would be qualified as an expert in history. There was no assertion from BFTAA that Ms. Williams should be qualified as an expert in any other field. Accordingly, BFTAA waived this issue before the Commission. … District of Columbia Dep’t of Ins., Sec., and Banking, 54 A.3d 1188, 1216 (D.C. 2012) (“The requirement that the decision be fully and clearly explained . . . is necessary for meaningful judicial review of and deference

In re: Petition of J.J. T.R.

111 A.3d 1038 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2015

Seth King, a psychologist qualified as an expert witness, also testified in favor of J.J.‘s adoption petition after individually evaluating T.R. and J.J. and observing their interactions with J.R. … Code § 16-2353 (b) (2012 Repl.), to establish by 2 See D.C. Code § 16-304 (e) (2012 Repl.)

Slack v. Perrine

9 App. D.C. 128 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1896

viz., that the father of infant children may by deed or will transfer their exclusive custody and control to a guardian, regardless of the fact that their mother, his wife, may be competent, willing and in all respects qualified … This is clearly the logical result of the principles announced as early as 1813 in Mills v. Duryee and steadily adhered to ever since.” Chicago, etc., R. Co. v. Wiggins Ferry Co., 119 U. S. 615, 622 ; Christmas v.

In re Silva

29 A.3d 924 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2011

However, his expressions of remorse are qualified. For example, while Respondent purports to acknowledge that his conduct was harmful, that acknowledgement is tempered by efforts to minimize the harm. … The finding here is not clearly erroneous. (g)Mitigating or Aggravating Circumstances Respondent maintained that his clean record was a mitigating factor.

Bernstein v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

376 A.2d 816 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 1977

Thus to obtain a variance, it is fundamental that the property owner must prove that he qualifies for the requested relief. Taylor v. BZA, supra, 308 A.2d at 234 . … Granted that proving a negative presents some difficulties, this particular finding clearly lacks evidentiary support as the innocuous nature of the proposed use and the fact that an office use for 25 years had gone unnoticed

In re Dugan

6 D.C. 131 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1865

This exposition of the nature and province of the writ of habeas corpus will enable us to understand clearly what is meant by the provision of the Constitution above quoted, viz: “The privilege of this writ shall not be suspended … calling forth the militia for any cause, which, in the king’s judgment makes it expedient, the sole- and exclusive power of appointments to office, both civil and military; the power of appointment to great offices in the established

In re Roy L. Person, Jr.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 2020

. § 239.3(b) for his proposition that “[t]he inherently deceptive nature of an unqualified guarantee that turns out to be qualified is well chronicled in the law” (emphasis in brief) and to support his favored interpretation … Standard of Review Disciplinary Counsel must establish a rule violation by clear and convincing evidence. In re Tun, 195 A.3d 65, 72 (D.C. 2018).