Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,857 results
0.81s
824 A.2d 26 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 22, 2003
After being given immunity, she admitted that she had threatened another woman for allegedly acting indecently around Thomas. [5] II. LEGAL ANALYSIS A. The replacement of Juror No. 1. … difference between Johnson's testimony in court and what the police and doctor reported she said to them right after the incident. [5] Because the government's case was grounded on Johnson's credibility and the jury's verdict clearly
Cited 7 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 8, 2023
And it is hard to see how simply being on the complainant’s block routinely would qualify either, given the multitude of reasons Beachum might have had for being there. … The opinion for the court clearly intends that the stalking statute be understood to apply to them. Supra at 47.
Cited 0 timesPublishedCzajka v. Holt Graphic Arts, Inc.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 23, 2022
The RUEFJA and the DC UEFJA were intended to streamline the process of establishing foreign judgments. … UEFJA clearly distinguishes between the two mechanisms.
Cited 0 timesPublished613 A.2d 332 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 1992
an error'" or that "`a wrong move by the judge means immunity for the prisoner.'" … Thus, "[i]t is well established that in criminal proceedings, petitions for rehearing are timely filed if made within the period allotted for the noticing of an appeal." Cook, supra, 670 F.2d at 48 (citing Browder v.
Declined to follow by Smith v. United States, 1996 D.C. App. LEXIS 291 (1996)Cited 8 timesPublished725 A.2d 445 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1998
Rather, he offered Landise only office space, and to pay her a salary, while she established her own practice. … Landise also argues that an expert witness was necessary to assist the jury’s understanding of the complexities of a law partnership and establish a standard of behavior. See O’Neil v.
Cited 13 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia v. American University
2 A.3d 175 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2010
meet licensure requirementsjust to qualify for an exemption from the name restrictions of section 29-618. … But, for reasons I shall explain, the maxim is inapposite in this case. [2] According to the affidavit of Lance de Masi, AUD's President, "the Clinton Foundation, established by former President Bill Clinton, has established
Cited 10 timesPublishedHolder v. District of Columbia
700 A.2d 738 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 1997
A police officer has a qualified privilege to use reasonable force to effect an arrest, provided that the means employed are not "in excess of those which the actor reasonably believes to be necessary." … upon negligence for which the District of Columbia (District) stipulated liability if the jury found only that Holder had no gun at the time that the police officer shot him. [1] Holder's theory was that negligence was established
Cited 54 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2023
not sufficiently ‘medical’ to qualify under the statute,” but rather “[t]reatment of a higher order, requiring true ‘medical’ expertise, is required.” … It is well established that a defendant cannot well complain of being prejudiced by a situation which he created.” Parker v.
Cited 0 timesPublishedTAMEKA PARKER v. UNITED STATES
155 A.3d 835 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017
Formulations like this have been used when the focus of analysis was on whether the force the defendant used was excessive, not on whether the defendant used force that was so predictably ineffectual as not to qualify as … The police officer who responded to the scene testified that appellant “explained to me clearly that she wouldn’t just spit on him for no reason, that he spit on her first .
Cited 0 timesPublished146 A.3d 360 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2016
SHPDA is statutorily required to establish, update, and administer a Health Systems Plan, D.C. … That statute was enacted in 1978 so that the District could qualify for federal funding.
Cited 3 timesPublishedCrumbaugh ex rel. Raub v. Otterback
20 D.C. 434 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 1892
Nevertheless, the English courts have so thoroughly established it that the Court of Appeals of this State have felt themselves bound not to disturb the current of authority. … This court could not sanction a practice so fraught with mischief, unless it were so long and so clearly established as to have the force of positive law.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 6, 2022
She was qualified and appointed on October 4, 2021, to perform judicial duties as a Senior Judge and will begin her service as a Senior Judge on a date to be determined after her successor is appointed and qualifies. … The evidence in this case was sufficient to establish a conspiracy to commit burglary based on an agreement to enter Henderson’s apartment with an intent to steal or commit an assault.
Cited 0 timesPublished60 A.3d 1171 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 3, 2013
Dorsey showed himself to be immune. In addition, the opinion sees linkages between Mr. Dorsey’s confession and the improper interrogation which simply are not there— linkages which Mr. … This is another sentence that is not in the transcript, but it can be heard clearly on the videotape. .
Cited 12 timesPublished193 A.3d 773 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2018
LEXIS 334, at *7 (Feb. 20, 2014) (holding that where the mother “failed to satisfy her commensurate responsibility to participate in the services that are offered,” “the trial court did not clearly err by finding that petitioner … Guidance: Pregnancy Discrimination and Related Issues statement that “[a]lthough pregnancy . . . is never on its own a disability, some pregnant workers may have impairments related to their pregnancies that qualify
Cited 8 timesPublishedETDH Associates v. Waterfall Ventures, LLC
999 A.2d 22 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 2010
purchaser or holder of the certificate of sale in accordance with § 47-1304. (6)Proceeds from the sale that represent unpaid water charges shall be credited to the Water and Sewer Enterprise Fund of the District of Columbia as established … (c) The Mayor may defer or forgive, in whole or in part, any water and sanitary sewer service charges due the District for any qualified real property pursuant to § 6-1503.
Cited 0 timesPublishedSessoms-Deloatch v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 2020
Kwai Fun Wong, 575 U.S. 402, 409 (2015) (statutory time bars “cabin a court’s power only if Congress has ‘clearly stated’ as much”); Sebelius v. Auburn Reg’l Med. … United States, 749 A.2d 1253, 1258 (D.C. 2000). 9 Supreme Court precedents substantially undermined those prior holdings and established the clear tenet that “court-promulgated
Cited 0 timesPublishedLumen Eight Media Group LLC v. D.C. CLPF-CC, Pavilio v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2022
Moreover, the emergency rule at issue here clearly was designed to clarify the Legacy Rule. … Here, there clearly is a conflict between the provisions of § 1-303.21 and § 6-1409 that might affect our case.
Cited 0 timesPublished930 A.2d 946 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2007
The District also opposed certification of the petitions as class actions and sought to require any qualifying named petitioners to litigate their cases separately. … any State or Territory or the District of Columbia, subjects, or causes to be subjected, any citizen of the United States or other person within the jurisdiction thereof to the deprivation of any rights, privileges, or immunities
Cited 10 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2019
Setepenra qualified as a present sense impression by a preponderance of the evidence. In the alternative, it argues that any error was harmless. … “Testimony that an accused adopted statements of another person as his own may be admitted in evidence as an exception to the hearsay rule if it clearly appears that the accused understood and unambiguously assented to
Cited 0 timesPublished770 A.2d 996 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2001
Voss sought to establish that Ms. Lewis did not have the symptoms of a medial meniscus tear when Dr. Smith flrst treated her. Dr. … Hanley’s testimony, the jury clearly gave the doctor’s testimony significant weight with respect to the proximate cause of Ms.
Cited 7 timesPublished
Ask Donna