Case law

Curtis v. Gordon

980 A.2d 1238 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 2009

Accordingly, the trial court’s order of arrear-ages that included a $1,000 payment, plus penalties under paragraphs 3.4 and 3.5 of the Agreement, for November 2000 was “clearly erroneous.” … The party asserting the defense has the burden of establishing these elements. American Univ. Park, supra, 400 A.2d at 740 .

In Re Cleaver-Bascombe

892 A.2d 396 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 9, 2006

To establish a violation of Rule 8.4(d), Bar Counsel must demonstrate by clear and convincing evidence that: 1. … The Committee found that Bar Counsel had established by clear and convincing evidence that Respondent did not meet with Whitley at the jail on February 15, 2002.

In Re McMillan

940 A.2d 1027 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2008

There appears to be no contention that the trial court could not find based on all of the evidence that it was clearly and convincingly established that appellant is an incapacitated *1039 person within the meaning of the … The court’s statement can easily be read as a statement showing that it is not a case implicating D.C.Code § 21-2041(f) (specifying a preference for examiners and visitors qualified as mental retardation professionals where

In re A.C.

573 A.2d 1235 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 1990

Counsel for the hospital and for L.M.C. contend, on the other hand, that A.C. was incompetent to make her own medical decisions and that, under the substituted judgment procedure, the evidence clearly established that A.C … Weingold later qualified his opinion as to A.C.’s ability to give an informed consent, stating that he thought the environment for an informed consent was non-existent because A.C. was in intensive care, flanked by a weeping

Emero Sanchez Tornero v. United States

161 A.3d 675 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2017

Cell phone records established that by 2:17 a.m. … That clearly distinguishes her case from that of N.R. who hailed a cab driven by the appellant but was alone and of C.A. where there is no evidence how she found herself in appellant‟s taxi.

In re Clark

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 15, 2024

Clark’s compelled production of responsive documents to the questions clearly would have a potentially incriminating “testimonial aspect.” … Clark make admissions that would help the government establish that he had no grounds to assert in his draft letter that the Department of Justice had concerns about the Georgia election. 27 As an aside

Hickerson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 2023

The parties agree that Hickerson’s sodomy conviction qualifies as a registration offense. … We noted only that K.M. had “successfully completed parole,” id., but the timing of his parole’s termination was clearly of no moment as we did not see fit to specify when it had ended.

Ayala v. Washington

679 A.2d 1057 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1996

The party seeking punitive damages must establish the grounds for punitive damages by clear and convincing evidence. … And I would explain to you later what qualified privilege means. ... Publication of a statement means that the statement is communicated to and understood by a person other than the plaintiff; ...

In Re PS

797 A.2d 1219 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2001

However, we qualified our conclusion by stating that "[t]he circumstances might be quite different if the child's prospects for adoption were greater or a prospective placement had been shown," id. at 951 , and we left open … The trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the birth parents appeared to spend relatively large sums on gifts for the two children presently residing with them, funds that could have been applied to making

Hood v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2022

Although her term expired on September 4, 2021, she will continue to serve as an Associate Judge until her successor is appointed and qualifies. See D.C. Code § 11-1502 (2012 Repl.) … He notes that at the suppression hearing, the government did not even attempt to establish, 10 let alone prove clearly and convincingly, that there was an independent source for Office Butler’s identification of him, i.e

Mayers v. Mayers

908 A.2d 1182 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2006

Clearly the court’s order reflected neither personal bias nor prejudice against Mr. Mayers. … of $110,000 in spite of a statement from a lending institution that he so qualified.” 617 A.2d at 971 .

In re O'Neill

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2022

If his dishonesty does not qualify as flagrant, then nothing does. … Walsh, the High Court of Ireland, Disciplinary Counsel, the Hearing Committee, and the Board more than qualify him to be placed in this ignominious company.

In re Estate of James Hamilton

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2023

But “[t]he parties’ intention to make a contract severable must be clearly expressed in the agreement.” RDP Dev. Corp. v. Schwartz, 657 A.2d 301, 307 n.7 (D.C. 1995). … Ford, 98 A.3d 1008, 1010 (D.C. 2014) (“[T]he 2002 deed to the property . . . indicates that the mother added [her son] to the deed to establish a joint ownership before she died.”).

District of Columbia Fire & Emergency Medical Services Department v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board and Local 36, International Association of Fire Fighters

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 Johnson

691 A.2d 628 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 1997

In his brief, Johnson argues: Under Blair , the hospital clearly had the option of discharging Mr. … The Commission is a quasi-adjudicative body established by law; the Superior Court appoints its nine members — one lawyer as chairperson and eight practicing physicians — as prescribed by D.C.Code § 21-502.

Brenda Zanders v. Richard Baker & Brenda Zanders v. Gordon Thomas

207 A.3d 1129 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 16, 2019

To establish a claim for intentional interference with business relations—or tortious interference—a plaintiff must establish, among other things, the “existence of a valid contractual or other business relationship” and … Zanders did not establish that the Bakers knew of her contract with Mr.

Thomas v. United States

602 A.2d 647 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1992

In contrast, 3204(b) establishes a new and separate substantive offense. … Ordinarily, whether an instrument qualifies as a dangerous weapon under 3202 depends upon one of two factors.

Robinson v. United States

825 A.2d 318 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2003

L.Ed.2d 648 (1976), this court expressly found that the Department of Corrections is not an investigative arm of the United States government and, therefore, cannot be held to the duty of preservation that would apply to a qualified … Cir.1964), "clearly looks the other way"). The D.C. Circuit has noted but not reached the reading of the Jencks Act in Sopher, while rejecting a similar narrow reading of Rule 16. See Bryant I, 142 U.S.App.

Jackson v. United States

940 A.2d 981 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2008

Clearly aware of our decisions in Nixon and its progeny construing the “serious bodily injury” requirement for aggravated assault, the Council thus chose to create the intermediate offense of “enhanced assault” rather than … A key issue in the case was whether the way the defendant used the telephone cord was likely to produce death or "great bodily injury,” a requirement if the telephone cord were to qualify as a prohibited "dangerous weapon

Czajka v. Holt Graphics Arts, Inc.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2024

In our view, the text of Sections 15-101(a) and 15-352 does not clearly answer that question. … In reaching that conclusion, we are not “inserting qualifying language of our own invention.” Infra at 49.