Case law

Gomez v. United States

597 A.2d 884 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1991

I cite for that proposition Texas v. Brown, 460 U.S. 730 [ 103 S.Ct. 1535 , 75 L.Ed.2d 502 ] [1983]. … Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1013 (D.C.1991).

Bernard v. United States

575 A.2d 1191 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 31, 1990

Curry v. United States, 520 A.2d 255, 263 (D.C.1987). Rather, the government must establish that appellants knew of the location of the cocaine and that they exercised dominion and control over it. Brown v. … Brown, supra, 546 A.2d at 394 n. 2 (quoting standardized jury instruction); United States v. Cousins, 427 F.2d 382, 384 (9th Cir.1970). “Constructive possession may be sole or joint.” Brown, supra, 546 A.2d at 394 n. 2.

Stewart v. United States

881 A.2d 1100 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2005

Accord, e.g., Adams v. … Brown would have behaved differently and chosen to testify at the trial. See Sykes v. United States, 585 A.2d 1335, 1340 (D.C.1991).

Chevy Chase Citizens Ass'n v. District of Columbia Council

327 A.2d 310 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 1974

C. v. District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, D.C.App., 318 A.2d 294 (1974). That case involved the minimum wage to be paid to employees in the hotel, restaurant, and allied occupations. … That statute was considered by this court in Wallace v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, D.C.App., 289 A.2d 885 (1972).

Browne v. Sanders

20 D.C. 455 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 28, 1892

Justice Cox delivered the opinion of the court. ' I am requested to announce the conclusions of the court in the case of Browne vs. Sanders and others. … The complainant was one of the directors of this association, one of the active managers, and was repeatedly elected a member of the board of directors.'

Jones v. United States

271 A.2d 559 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 1970

The officer also testified that Brown had “fresh needle marks and tracks on his arm.” … Appellant contends that our ruling in Edelin v.

Harper v. Cunningham

8 App. D.C. 430 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 1896

Campbell v. Wilcox, 10 Wall. 421 ; Aurora v. West, 7 Wall. 82 ; Stanton v. Embry, 93 U. S. 548 . … Hall v. Lanning, 91 U. S. 160 ; Clark v. Bowen, 22 How. 270 ; Bell v. Morrison, 1 Pet. 351 ; Karthaus v. Ferrer, 1 Pet. 222 ; Story on Partnership, sec. 114. Parsons on Partnership, sec. 179.

Hackney v. Chamblee

980 A.2d 427 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2009

Stansel v. American Sec. … Bolgiano & Co. v. Brown, 333 A.2d 674, 675 (D.C.1975) (“The promise to pay a reasonable attorney’s fee in addition to the face amount of the note plus interest means precisely that....

Akins v. United States

679 A.2d 1017 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1996

Appellants Barnes and Carrero, however, were not able to cross-examine Theron Brown either at the grand jury or at trial. See Pointer v. … United States, 362 U.S. 257, 261 , 80 S.Ct. 725, 731 , 4 L.Ed.2d 697 (1960); Brown v. United States, 627 A.2d 499, 502-04 (D.C.1993).

Regional Redevelopment Corp. v. Hoke

547 A.2d 1006 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1988

Hoke’s name and told Brown he had already seen the property and the brochure. … Zetlin v.

Norton v. Leisering

125 A.2d 56 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1956

Hendelberg v. Goldstein, 93 U.S.App. D.C. 395, 211 F.2d 428 . . “ * * *, ,1 think there is no valid distinction between revocation and refusal to renew.” Wilbur K. … See also Minkoff v. Payne, 93 U.S. App.D.C. 123, 210 P.2d 689 .

United States v. Minick

455 A.2d 874 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1983

One of the officers handcuffed Minick and advised him of his Miranda rights. 1 The police seized a stained white smock from atop an ironing board visible from the armchair. … Cardwell v.

Price v. Griffin

359 A.2d 582 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1976

Price informed him that his name would be submitted to the board of the corporation for nomination as a director. … Brown v. Coates, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 300 , 253 F.2d 36 (1958); Gombos v. Ashe, 158 Cal.App.2d 517 , 322 P.2d 933 (1958); White v. Doney, 82 Idaho 217 , 351 P.2d 380 (1960).

Isler v. United States

824 A.2d 957 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 29, 2003

Brown about twelve times but she did not “know how many times he hit him.” 2 ANALYSIS Citing Feaster v. United States, 631 A.2d 400 (D.C.1993) and Alston v. United States, 383 A.2d 307 (D.C.1978), Me. … Brown or what they said to the grand jury in 1994. See United States v.

Lively v. Flexible Packaging Ass'n

830 A.2d 874 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 2003

See also Brown v. … See Woodland v.

Westchester Apartments, Inc. v. Keroes

32 A.2d 869 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 1943

Nevertheless it did somewhat later agree to a sublease to one Brown. … Code 1940, 45 — 904; Boss v. Hagan, 49 App.D.C. 106 , 261 E. 254, 8 A.L.R. 150S.

Crump v. Browning

110 A.2d 695 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1955

Atchison v. Dullam, 16 Ill.App. 42 . This seems to be the rule generally followed in cases involving firearms and explosives. Skinner v. Ochiltree, 148 Fla. 705 , 5 So.2d 605 , 140 A.L.R. 410 ; McLaughlin v. … Normand v. Normand, La.App., 65 So.2d 914 ; Luttrell v. Carolina Mineral Co., 220 N.C. 782 , 18 S.E.2d 412 ; Skinner v. Ochiltree, supra; Naegele v. Dollen, supra. We think this court should not adopt a softer policy.

Smith v. United States

392 A.2d 990 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 1978

Brookhart v. Janis, 384 U.S. 1, 3 , 86 S.Ct. 1245 , 16 L.Ed. 314 (1966). The trial court here relied on Brown v. … See Brown v. United States, supra; Thomas v. United States, supra. See also Fed.R.Evid. 609(d); United States v. Decker, 543 F.2d 1102, 1104-05 (5th Cir. 1976), cert. denied sub nom. Vice v.

Goodall v. United States

759 A.2d 1077 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2000

See Holland v. … Butler, 838 F.2d 59 , 63 (5th Cir.1987) (holding parole eligibility is a collateral consequence to a guilty plea); Brown v.

McMillen v. United States

407 A.2d 603 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1979

United States, D.C.App., 302 A.2d 216 (1973) (no requirement of showing intent to use weapon for a criminal purpose, must prove intent to do the proscribed act); Brown v. … . *605 In Jackson , we did not cite or discuss Brown v. United States, D.C.App., 379 A.2d 708 (1977), a case on all fours with the present case.