Case law

In Re AH

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 .... … Where such deprivation is established, this definition does not require proof that the child has already sustained actual injury as a result.

Payne v. Soft Sheen Products, Inc.

486 A.2d 712 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 1985

Jordan, who was qualified as a burn expert at trial, stated that Payne had suffered a second-degree burn, and explained that this meant that the “outermost area of the skin was certainly burned, there was a blister between … The decision whether to admit expert testimony, however, lies within the broad discretion of the trial court, whose ruling should be sustained unless clearly erroneous, District of Columbia v.

Vasquez v. D.C. Zoning Commission

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2024

The record does not actually establish that anyone moved to the neighborhood because it was designated as moderate-density or as an NCA. … Nor does the record establish what portion of the current park is needed for current uses by area residents, including seniors and immune- compromised individuals, who rely on the park to meet their mental or physical health

Brian Gill v. Rodney Van Nostrand

206 A.3d 869 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 2019

Gill’s proposal even though it could not find that this was proven clearly and convincingly. … Van Nostrand and Mr. da Silva established joint accounts early in their marriage and heard evidence that Mr.

Kling v. Peters

564 A.2d 708 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 19, 1989

This question, which clearly calls for Dr. Smith’s conclusion as to proximate cause, was answered as follows: No. … Smith was qualified to testify about what Dr. Kling, as an ophthalmologist, should have done after the March surgery.

Hughes-Turner v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Services

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2022

The words “any one injury” establish that the unit of analysis is the underlying injury, not the various awards that might stem from it. … For those benefits, the statute clearly “imposes a 500-week cap upon the classes of benefits mentioned, in combination.”

In Re Ti. B.

762 A.2d 20 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 2000

The court feared, however, “that it would be opening the floodgates to access [to] clearly confidential family information if it were to grant [T.B.’s] request. … Bevers, 922 F.2d 618, 620 (10th Cir.1990) (“The right to retain and consult with an attorney ... implicates not only the Sixth Amendment 8 but also clearly established First Amendment rights of association and free speech

Mario Giovani Valendzuela-Castillo v. United States

180 A.3d 74 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2018

Appellant‘s position on the floor qualified as one because, as the trial judge fairly concluded, he occupied it for the purpose of observing Cartwright. … The 12 Because I think the plain text of the statute clearly does not encompass Mr.

United House of Prayer for all People v. D.C. Dep't. of Transportation

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2022

However, there may still be a principal-agent relationship between UHP and Romero if they consented to establish such a relationship or their conduct establishes that such a relationship actually or impliedly exists. … Moreover, there is insufficient evidence in the record to establish there was a meeting of the minds between UHP and Romero on this issue sufficient to establish an oral contract.

Alleyne v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 2024

Cir. 1941) (citing, among other cases, an out-of-jurisdiction precedent holding that “theft of goods with intent to sell them back to the owner” qualifies as larceny). 2 And in Mitchell v. … Under this prong, we affirm unless the defendant shows a “reasonable probability of a different outcome but for the established error.” Keerikkattil v.

Townsend v. Donaldson

933 A.2d 282 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 26, 2007

Donaldson was not entitled to the testimony of the Hospital’s expert to establish her prima facie case. We disagree. … Alberty-Velez is clearly distinguishable. In that case, the First Circuit found that the trial court had erred in admitting critical evidence. We have found no evidence that was erroneously admitted in this case.

In re I.J.

906 A.2d 249 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 2005

Moreover, we have on occasion said that, for purposes of the Fifth Amendment, "custody is clearly more than seizure alone.” … See Alvarado, 541 U.S. at 668 , 124 S.Ct. 2140 (concluding in a habeas petition of state court conviction that state court’s failure to consider the suspect’s age is not "an unreasonable application of clearly established

Picon v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 2025

That provision allows for an “applicant between the ages of [eighteen] and [twenty-one] years old . . . who is otherwise qualified” to be issued a registration certificate if the application is “accompanied by a notarized … The case proceeded to trial, where the evidence established the following.

J. H. Marshall & Associates, Inc. v. Burleson

313 A.2d 587 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1973

However, the holding in that case is clearly limited. … “[A] lawyer should aid in establishing, as well as enforcing, standards of conduct adequate to protect the public by insuring that those who practice law are qualified to do so.”

Matthews v. United States

629 A.2d 1185 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 26, 1993

This is clearly the case here. *1194 The statute provides that the trial court shall hold a prompt hearing unless the files and records establish beyond doubt that the movant would be entitled to no relief if the allegations … United States, 485 A.2d 596, 601 (D.C.1984) ("instrument capable of producing death or serious bodily injury by its manner of use qualifies as a dangerous weapon"; car found to be a dangerous weapon), cert. denied, 474 U.S

Sandoval v. Mendez

521 A.2d 1168 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 1987

In order for something to qualify as a intrafamily offense, the people who lived together must have also have had an intimate relationship. … More significantly, the legislative history of § 16-1001(5)(B) supplies a broad definition of "intimate relationship" that clearly covers this case.

Wint v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 2022

We have never established a per se rule that any new fact introduced in rebuttal warrants surrebuttal as a matter of right. … Here, as the majority acknowledges, the government’s rebuttal clearly went beyond mere extraneous new facts and met the “new matter” threshold established in Gregory. See ante at 20-21. Mr.

W.D. v. C.S.M.

906 A.2d 317 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 2006

Clearly, a parent who was found in the neglect proceeding not to have neglected the child, as appellant W.D. was here, would be entitled to such protections. … Among these are: (1) a fact-finding hearing and written findings as to whether the child is neglected (D.C.Code § 2317(a) & (b)); (2) a predisposition study by the Director of Social Services, or qualified agency concerning

Rose's 1, LLC v. Erie Insurance Exchange

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2023

During Phase I, Mayor Bowser lifted the stay-at-home order, and, with respect to dining establishments, allowed restaurants to offer limited outdoor dining services. 7 In Phase II, restaurants and bars were permitted to … Throughout the Policy, the interaction between “loss” and “interruption of business” supports the conclusion that in order to have a qualifying “loss,” the property must be “repaired, rebuilt, or replaced.”

Wolf v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

397 A.2d 936 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 1979

Judicial review with respect to those determinations is in general best made, we think, under the well established rule of deference to administrative expertise. … The failure of the BZA to identify the ANC as the source of the aforementioned concern *945 clearly did not prevent the Board from coming “to grips” with that concern in its findings.