Case law

In re Klayman

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 2025

Klayman further claimed that Judge Gould had “clearly and unequivocally found that Mr. … These statements were clearly dishonest; if Mr.

In Re Abrams

689 A.2d 6 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1997

Second, because the pardon attaches to the underlying conduct, the Court has established that a pardoned offender enjoys immunity not only from criminal prosecution, but also from any other form of punishment or civil disability … Clearly, then, although the pardon will not render the petitioner innocent, if it restores all his basic civil rights, both state and federal, it will do away with the “collateral consequences” of his conviction.

Paul Anthony Ashby, Keith Logan, and Merle Vernon Watson v. United States

199 A.3d 634 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2019

Watson and Logan argue that these statements were “blame shifting” on Ashby’s part, since he discussed Logan and Watson’s involvement, and therefore the statements do not qualify as statements against penal interest. … Thomas was relevant, the court allowed questioning to establish the “friendship” between Logan and Mr.

Perez v. United States

968 A.2d 39 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2009

Bonilla's statements to the police are clearly testimonial. See Crawford, 541 U.S. at 53 , 124 S.Ct. 1354 . … The prosecutor in that case, AUSA Stephen Gripkey, offered to help García by applying for an "S Visa" and preparing a letter of immunity concerning her immigration issues.

Gaulden v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2020

Appellant has not demonstrated that this finding is clearly erroneous. … Gaulden also chose not to produce testimony or affidavit of a qualified medical professional regarding his limited physical abilities.

Dorsey v. United States

2 A.3d 222 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 2010

Dorsey contends that his request could not qualify as an ‘initiation’ under Edwards , because Edwards does not make its initiation exception available after police have violated Edwards.” … Andrew Goss, a liquor sales representative, sold liquor to retail establishments in the area where Ms. Fotopoulous was attacked. He also knew Mr.

Lamon v. McKee

18 D.C. 446 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1889

The court says: “The bill is a long one, the allegations are not classified, nor the true foundations of relief very clearly stated. … These are some of the omissions of essential matters, all or some of which are requisite to establish a claim to the relief sought.

District of Columbia v. Facebook, Inc.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2025

It “establishes an enforceable right to truthful information from merchants about consumer goods and services,” and is to be “construed and applied liberally” to effectuate that purpose. D.C. … The court then explained that because “Facebook clearly disclosed all relevant terms in its policies,” a “reasonable consumer could not have been misled as a matter of law.”

Shipkey v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

955 A.2d 718 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 2008

The District responds that the ALJ and CRB correctly applied the “localized principally” *721 test and that the test itself and its application were not “clearly contrary to legislative intent.” … Decisions issued by the Director prior to the establishment of the CRB are accorded persuasive authority by the CRB. 7 DCMR § 255.7 (2005). 5 .

Onyeoziri v. Spivok

44 A.3d 279 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 2012

Once the plaintiff has established a prima facie case, the burden shifts to the defendant to establish that the interference was “ ‘legally justified or privileged.’ ” NCRIC, 957 A.2d at 901 (quoting Alfred A. … As required to oppose summary judgment, he presented evidence: a signed and ratified standard-form contract for sale with a proposed closing date of August 30, 19 a letter pre-qualifying the purchaser for a loan geared to

Khan v. Orbis Business Intelligence Ltd.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 2023

for resolution of legal disputes.” 26 However, “baseless litigation is not immunized by the First Amendment right to petition.” 27 “The right to petition protected by the First Amendment does not include the right to … Although the contours of the Petition Clause are not clearly defined, some encroachment on the right to petition — particularly when regulations do not directly 34 See, e.g., Broadrick v.

Gaulden v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2020

Appellant has not demonstrated that this finding is clearly erroneous. … Gaulden also chose not to produce testimony or affidavit of a qualified medical professional regarding his limited physical abilities.

Scott v. United States

619 A.2d 917 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 1993

However, the prosecutor’s statement that revolvers do not eject shell casings clearly was not based on any facts in evidence. … Assuming that this statement qualified as an identification, Boswell and Beall could have testified about that remark if they in fact heard it. See Mack v. United States, 150 A.2d 477, 479 (D.C. 1959).

Scott v. United States

536 A.2d 1040 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1987

The evidence adduced at trial established that appellant escalated to a deadly level an otherwise weaponless street scuffle. … United States, 455 A.2d 405 (D.C.1982), upon which appellant relies, are clearly distinguishable.

Jemison v. National Baptist Convention, USA, Inc.

720 A.2d 275 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 5, 1998

issued an order on June 26,1995, stating in part: Virtually every document submitted in support of the TRO, and to support the central allegation that six hundred (600) or more persons were denied the right to vote, though qualified … Our standard of review is well established.

Kane v. Dist. of Columbia

180 A.3d 1073 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2018

Kane does not challenge the court‘s determination that ANC 2F established the applicability of the privilege to the documents in question. … Following the vote, he sent ANC 2F a FOIA request for documents relating to Ghana Cafe‘s license or any other liquor licenses for establishments within the ANC‘s jurisdiction.

Stebbins v. Stebbins

673 A.2d 184 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1996

The Supreme Court and all courts established by Act of Congress may issue all writs necessary or appropriate in aid of their respective jurisdictions and agreeable to the usages and principles of law. … The appellate court issues the writ in two classic situations: where the lower court has acted without jurisdiction or power, or where the lower court has clearly abused its discretion.

Drake v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 30, 2024

Drake’s property, it “would also qualify as a search incident to arrest.” 1 D. … Jackson, 805 A.2d at 985 (“Whether a seizure has occurred for Fourth Amendment purposes is a question of law which this court reviews de novo, deferring to the trial court’s factual findings, unless clearly erroneous.”).

Ford v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2021

Because consent is a factual inquiry, we uphold the trial court’s consent findings unless clearly erroneous and review questions of law de novo. Jackson v. United States, 805 A.2d 979, 985 (D.C. 2002). Mr. … Ford contends that the trial court committed plain error in concluding that Detective Thomas was qualified to testify as a drug expert because the detective’s testimony was not based on reliable methods and principles reliably

Ford v. ChartOne, Inc.

908 A.2d 72 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 2006

Rather, ChartOne claims, the court properly determined that the purchase did not qualify as a consumer transaction because it did not have a “consumer purpose” — because, that is, the use of Ford’s medical records in his … S.W.2d 868, 873 (Tenn.Ct.App.01997) (stating that "the fact that it was Pratt’s attorney, rather than Pratt herself, who received the records and paid the invoice presents no obstacle to Pratt’s claim, since her attorney clearly