Case law

Robinson v. United States

606 A.2d 1368 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 17, 1992

Brown v. United States, 464 A.2d 120, 123 (D.C.1983). … United States v. Sears, 663 F.2d 896, 904 (9th Cir.1981), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1027 , 102 S.Ct. 1731 , 72 L.Ed.2d 148 (1982), quoted in Brown, supra, 464 A.2d at 123 .

Thompson v. United States

745 A.2d 308 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2000

Thompson and no lookout was for a brown paper bag .... ” Nor did Officer Timlick ever see or recover a brown paper bag from the Nissan. … Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1020 (D.C.1991) (citing Lawrence, 566 A.2d at 60 ). Thompson asserts “that the police seized him without probable cause or reasonable suspicion.”

Arrington v. United States

382 A.2d 14 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 1978

Relying on South Dakota v. Opperman, supra, the government seeks to sustain the seizure and examination of the brown bag and its contents as part of a routine inventory incident to the impoundment of appellant’s car. … See, e. g., Mayfield v. United States, D.C.App., 276 A.2d 123 (1971); United States v. Pannell, D.C.App., 256 A.2d 925 (1969); Williams v. United States, D.C.

Ellis v. United States

834 A.2d 858 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2003

Despite the clear teaching of Giles , appellant relies on language in Brown v. … In all events, because Giles was decided before Brown it is Giles , and not Brown , that is binding precedent. See Thomas v.

District of Columbia v. Heman Ward, Inc.

261 A.2d 836 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1970

In Kenny Construction Company v. … See, e. g., United States v. Joseph A. Holpuch Co., 328 U.S. 234, 236 , 66 S.Ct. 1000 , 90 L.Ed. 1192 (1946); United States v.

Gross Ex Rel. Spears v. District of Columbia

734 A.2d 1077 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 1999

Board of County Comm’rs v. Brown, 520 U.S. 397, 400 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 , 137 L.Ed.2d 626 (1997) (quoting Monell, 436 U.S. at 694 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 ; emphasis in original). … Board of County Comm’rs, supra, 520 U.S. at 405 , 117 S.Ct. 1382 .

Thomas v. District of Columbia Department of Labor

409 A.2d 164 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1979

Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board, D.C. App., 383 A.2d 345, 349 (1978), quoting Von Stauffenberg v. … Rizzitano v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra; Garvin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 18 Pa.Cmwlth. 96 , 334 A.2d 854 (1975); Manjares v.

In re D.J.

532 A.2d 138 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1987

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). Citizens have no legal duty to talk to the police. See Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., 453 A.2d 110, 112 (D.C.1982). … Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497-98 , 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion) (citations omitted); Brown v. Texas, supra, 443 U.S. at 52 , 99 S.Ct. at 2641 ; United States v.

In re Robinson

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 23, 2026

See Murray v. D.C. Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 765 A.2d 980, 983-85 (D.C. 2001). We are similarly unpersuaded by the hearing committee’s criticism of Ms. … Kramer, is an attorney at Mayer Brown LLP and a member of the D.C. Bar. Mr. Kramer represented Ms.

CLARENCE JACKSON v. ROBERT GEORGE

146 A.3d 405 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 22, 2016

Board of Trustees” (citing Chavez v. Jericho Baptist Ministries, Inc., Sept. Term 2013, No. 2604 (Md. App. … Franklin v. Jackson, No. DKC 14-0497, 2015 WL 1186599, *5-6 (D. Md. Mar. 13, 2015) (citing Board of Trustees of Jericho Baptist Church Ministries, Inc. v. Joel R. Peebles, Sr., et al., Case No.

Farley v. United States

767 A.2d 225 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 2001

Davies v. … United States v.

Henderson v. United States

687 A.2d 918 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 1996

The seminal decision is (Pomeroy) Brown v. United States, 58 App.D.C. 311 , 30 F.2d 474 (1929). … See, e.g., (William) Brown v. United States, 546 A.2d 390, 392 (D.C.1988) (defendant in front passenger seat; handgun behind two front seats); Tucker v.

Council of School Officers v. Vaughn

553 A.2d 1222 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1989

See also Greenhouse v. … Chancery Clerk v.

CONSTANTINE CANNON LLP v. MULLEN MANAGEMENT CO., INC.

123 A.3d 968 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 2015

Mullen defends the trial court’s ruling by citing our opinion in Brown v. … Although we could resolve this case by following this footnote in Brown, we decline to do so for two reasons. First, the court itself noted the statement was unnecessary to its holding. See Alfaro v.

Dew v. United States

558 A.2d 1112 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 3, 1989

See also United States v. … By referring to Brown’s letters to Ross and merely calling it “questionable” whether Brown’s relationship with Ross “existed or had been formalized,” the court appeared to allow for the possibility that Brown had remained

District of Columbia v. Tarlosky

675 A.2d 77 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 9, 1996

He concluded: The House and Senate Committee Reports provide no hint that the “scheduled rate of compensation” phrase was meant to be limiting or that the equalization provision should in some way not cover across the board … See, e.g., United States v. Brown, 422 A.2d 1281, 1284 (D.C.1980).

Hunter v. United States

548 A.2d 806 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1988

In Willis v. … United States v. Masthers, supra, 176 U.S.App.D.C. at 249 & nn. 49-50, 539 F.2d at 728 & nn. 49-50 (citing Pate v.

Jacobs v. United States

399 A.2d 38 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1979

(Burns v. United States, 287 U.S. 216, 222-23 , 53 S.Ct. 154, 156 , 77 L.Ed. 266 (1932) (citations omitted).] 7 Justice Frankfurter, speaking for the Court on the issue of abuse of discretion in Brown v. … . § 4255 (1976) in pertinent part states, “An offender who has been conditionally released shall be under the jurisdiction of the Board as if on parole under the established rules of the Board and shall remain, while conditionally

Harrison v. United States

407 A.2d 683 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1979

She also testified that on that same day, appellant’s brown jacket was at the cleaners. I. … See Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295 (1973); Bruce v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336 , 379 F.2d 113 (1967). Also see Woody v.

Howard University Hospital v. DC DOES and James M. Lyles

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2019

Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 83 A.3d 739, 743 n.6 (D.C. 2014). … Code § 32–1508 (3)(V).” Brown, 83 A.3d at 743 n.6. In the present case, Mr. Lyles sought a schedule award under D.C. Code § 32- 1508 (3)(A) and (S), which govern the partial loss of use of an arm.