Case law

Woods v. District of Columbia

63 A.3d 551 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 2013

, or exceptions to waivers of sovereign immunity”). … While not relevant to the case before us, our court has held that "[a] ‘special relationship’ can [also] be established by a statute prescribing mandatory acts clearly for the protection of a particular class of persons rather

Jaggers v. United States

482 A.2d 786 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1984

The Office of Corporation Counsel responded by indicating that it would consider granting immunity only if Stoddard requested it. … The trial court upheld the claim of privilege and denied Jaggers’ motion for a grant of judicial immunity for Stoddard.

Moore v. United States

374 A.2d 299 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 10, 1977

Morgan was not qualified to testify to the presence of cystolith hairs and the absence of any foreign adulterating substances. According to appellant, only a botanist is qualified to testify to such matters. … Morgan was clearly not a botanist, he was, we think, by virtue of his specialized training and experience, fully qualified to answer the narrow questions addressed to him concerning his microscopic examination.

Pulley v. United States

532 A.2d 651 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1987

During the course of the government’s cross-examination, the trial court expressed concern that Miles was not invoking the fifth amendment according to established procedures. See Jaggers v. … A month *653 later, the witness moved to set aside service on the grounds of immunity and inadequate mileage fees.

Kidwell v. District of Columbia

670 A.2d 349 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1996

not responsible for establishing training academy employment policy. … The suggestion, as to the latter, that the Department was waiting for a better qualified woman to come along would have seemed far-fetched.

Whittlesey v. United States

221 A.2d 86 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 1966

What would have been the case if the •Government had claimed immunity for these witnesses and the court had upheld the •claim is not a question before us. … It appears clearly established by the federal courts that when an information or indictment goes to the jury, and the defense counsel requests an instruction to the effect that the jury should not consider the information

Parker & Rollerson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 2025

her immunity. … Parker he “was clearly injured by the dog”).

Craig v. Cox

171 A.2d 259 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1961

However, appellant then brought up the question of obtaining a more convenient date for his appearance before the Commissioner and the record clearly establishes that the sole purpose of Olivier and appellant in going to … They argue that as airport police officers they are entitled to the same immunity afforded federal officers of many ranks.

In Re Tinsley

668 A.2d 833 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1995

Present Qualifications and Competence Bar Counsel believes that the evidence with respect to this factor falls far short of clearly and convincingly establishing that Petitioner is presently qualified and competent to practice … The problem, as the Board sees it, is that the record is woefully lacking in evidence that clearly, convincingly, and affirmatively establishes this Roundtree factor.

James v. Director of Motor Vehicles

193 A.2d 209 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1963

He contends that the regulation clearly states “not * * * morally qualified to operate a motor vehicle in such manner as not to jeopardize the safety of persons or property,” and that to sustain a revocation on the broad … It is to be noted that we have not attempted to establish a rule which will govern all possible cases.

Castellon v. United States

864 A.2d 141 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 2004

He contends that these findings *153 cannot be disturbed unless they are clearly erroneous and that they are not. … The government must establish voluntariness by a preponderance of the evidence. See Turner, 761 A.2d at 854 .

Trump v. Carroll

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2023

In this context, it is harder to clearly define what may be the authorized time and space limits of that employment. … I do not believe that this court has ever clearly articulated a rationale for that expansion.

Culler v. Physical Therapists Examining Board

228 A.2d 495 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1967

He stated he estimated the conditions of patients without electrical or functional tests or nerve conduction tests, established procedures followed by qualified physical therapists. … The record made by him clearly did not entitle him to be licensed without an examination. Affirmed.

Ronald Wynn v. United States

80 A.3d 211 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2013

If the proffered testimony is found to be incriminating and the witness requests immunity prior to testifying, “the defendant must first establish . . . that the proposed testimony is (a) material, (b) clearly exculpatory … Brooks declined to participate when the government stated that it required a debriefing of Brooks prior to a grant of immunity.

Aleotti v. Whitaker Bros. Business MacHines, Inc.

427 A.2d 919 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 24, 1981

In his first argument, appellant contends that factual findings of the court are clearly erroneous, the proper view of which would establish that appellees’ use of the land was permissive from 1959, thus defeating the claim … Appellant urges us to hold that landlords—like infants, seafarers, lunatics, and inmates—should be immunized from the period of prescriptive use running against them while they are not in actual possession of the property

E.C. v. RCM of Washington, Inc.

92 A.3d 305 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2014

.‖ However, we emphasize that in order for a claimant to qualify for benefits under this provision of the statute, the claimant first must establish a causal nexus between the domestic violence and the claimant‘s separation … Because we determine that E.C. clearly established that the instances of misconduct leading to her termination from employment were ―due to domestic violence,‖ we need not draw any conclusions on her alternate claim.

District of Columbia Office of Human Rights v. District of Columbia Department of Corrections

40 A.3d 917 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2012

“When the construction of an administrative regulation rather than a statute is in issue, deference is even more clearly in order.” 1330 Connecticut Ave. Inc. v. … In contrast, the DCHRA establishes in the statute itself a remedial scheme for claims against private employers. See D.C.Code § 2-1403.13(a).

Brown v. United States

40 A.2d 832 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1945

Sufficiency of Evidence May we accept the premise that the uncorroborated statement of a child too young to qualify as a' witness before the court is insufficient to warrant a conviction? … May we grant legal immunity to those degenerates who slyly abuse children in secret ?

District of Columbia v. Banks

646 A.2d 972 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1994

Murphy, who was qualified as an expert in law enforcement management and training and in police pursuits. … As we noted in Ab-ney, “generally ... waivers of immunity are to be read narrowly.” Id.

Posey v. United States

41 A.2d 300 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 16, 1945

All the cases agree that the question is one primarily for the trial judge, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal unless shown to be clearly erroneous. … However, there are many well established exceptions to this rule, raised by the special circumstances of particular cases; to the end that all relevant facts and circumstances tending to establish any of the constituent elements