Case law

Peyton v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 2022

Valentine punched back, concededly unaware in the stress of the 19 In acquitting appellant of second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter, the jury clearly rejected the government’s argument that the … necessity.” 42 Appellant argues that this court has never applied this strict rule to a claim of self-defense where the defendant was threatened with an intrusion in his home, and he advances some cogent reasons for qualifying

District of Columbia Hospital Ass'n v. Barry

586 A.2d 686 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1991

We disagree and affirm the judgment. 2 *688 I The District of Columbia Council enacted the Certificate of Need Act (“the CON Act”) in 1980 to ensure that health care facilities in the District qualified for federal health … The plain meaning of “on behalf of,” as a matter of simple English, clearly goes beyond an agency relationship.

Host v. United States

178 A.3d 1156 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2018

In finding that Best’s non-verbal responses to his mother qualified as statements against his penal interest, the trial court made sufficient findings that prong one of the Lau-mer standard was satisfied because the court … This does not require “that the information within the statement be clearly corroborated” but “only that there be corroborating circumstances that clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statement itself.” Ingram v.

Kelley v. Broadmoor Cooperative Apartments

676 A.2d 453 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 16, 1996

Kelley in the sense she means: an essentially unrestricted right to rent subject only to a qualified right of the Board to approve the tenant. … Words and phrases used in a bylaw are to be given their commonly accepted meaning unless the context clearly requires a different one or unless legal phrases having a special meaning are used. (Citations omitted).

Sandoe v. Lefta Associates

551 A.2d 76 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1988

First, the common law classification system is outdated because it establishes “immunities from liability which no longer comport with accepted values and common experience.” Id. at 90, 469 F.2d at 101 . … A landowner clearly must have some awareness of the condition of its property when asking people to enter onto it.

In Re Greenwald

808 A.2d 1231 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2002

This evidence establishes that Mr. … An applicant’s unauthorized practice may be accompanied by deceitful conduct or other evidence that an applicant lacks the character to qualify for admission to the Bar.

Gorbey v. United States

54 A.3d 668 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2012

There was ample evidence to establish constructive possession. … “The government may establish these elements by either direct or circumstantial evidence.” Id. at 1372-73 .

Thomas R. Jones v. United States

127 A.3d 1173 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2015

Stuckey’s testimony would clearly link appellant with a .44 caliber Bulldog revolver. … In addition, a photograph of the school grounds admitted in evidence clearly showed the sign identifying the school and its surrounding area as a gun-free zone.

In re Andrew J. Kline

113 A.3d 202 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 2015

This is much the same argument raised by Kline here and was clearly part of what motivated some members of the committee that developed this ethical rule to add the Comment to Rule 3.8 (e). … The “standard of clear and convincing proof requires evidence that will produce in the mind of the trier of fact a firm belief or conviction as to the facts sought to be established.”

In re J.D.W.

711 A.2d 826 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 14, 1998

Morrissey, 668 A.2d 792, 796 (D.C.1995), whereas findings of fact are reviewed under the “clearly erroneous” standard, In re L.L., 653 A.2d 873, 880 (D.C.1995). … The court continued, [The child] had been visiting regularly with the [Wilsons] for a year at that point and [the mother] knew that a relationship had been established.

Callaham v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 2022

Washington, 541 U.S. 36, 53–54 (2004)), defined as one “‘made for the purpose of establishing or proving some fact’ relevant to investigating or prosecuting a crime.” … Holmes did not address, much less qualify, the requirement that a lay witness testify based on their own personal knowledge.

Grimes v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2021

. . . to establish or prove past events potentially relevant to later criminal prosecution.” … United States, 914 A.2d 1, 13 (D.C. 2006) (“Under the Federal Rules of Evidence . . . a record cannot qualify as a business record if it was prepared for purposes of litigation.”).

Hubbard v. Chidel

790 A.2d 558 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2002

And that their failure to do so was a violation of the standard of care for a health care facility, which it clearly is and was. … Furthermore, since “‘it is in derogation of the common law principle of sovereign immunity, section 12-309 is to be construed narrowly against claimants.’ ” Id. (quoting Gross v.

Harris v. United States

602 A.2d 154 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1992

To leave such disclosures immune from the test of cross-examination, absent exceptional circumstances, will more likely leave the impression with the jury that claimed witnesses exist who corroborate the events as portrayed … It is the combination of factors in appellant's case—a prosecutor violating a clearly established rule, the trial judge failing to respond, and defense counsel failing to object —that created a miscarriage of justice.

McCloud v. United States

781 A.2d 744 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 2001

by a parent, the misconduct against the sibling may be used against the parent in a separate prosecution for misconduct against the first child because the first child has a strong enough connection to the sibling and is clearly … We reversed the trial court, holding first that the witness’ alleged obstruction attempt bore directly on his veracity and thus qualified as a subject for cross-examination. See id. at 1123-24.

Arthur v. District of Columbia

857 A.2d 473 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2004

Arthur are not articulated clearly. More is needed than a statement that the entry of default “is contrary to established D.C. statutes and case law,” especially in light of the requirements set forth in Super. Ct. Civ. … most significant incidents of this concurrent estate are the unilaterally indestructible right of survivorship; the inability of either spouse, acting alone, to alienate his [or her] interest in the property; and the broad immunity

Jennings v. United States

989 A.2d 1106 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2010

We begin our analysis by noting that the Supreme Court established a “bright-line rule” in Miranda 4 that if an accused who is subject to custodial interrogation invokes his or her right to counsel, “the interrogation must … In one instance, for example, the trial court stopped defense counsel from cross-examining a witness about a matter upon which he was not qualified to testify.

Environmental Research International, Inc. v. Lockwood Greene Engineers, Inc.

355 A.2d 808 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 1976

Those restrictions are more than a guarantee of immunity from inconvenient or distant litigation. They are a consequence of territorial limitations on the power of the respective States. … Here, the claim clearly arises from appellees' only contact with the District: their service contract with appellant.

Morris v. United States

728 A.2d 1210 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 6, 1999

State, 556 N.E.2d 1327 (Ind.1990) (suspect’s request to speak with investigator qualified as “initiation” under Edwards); accord, People v. … The judge’s finding that Morris initiated the discussion that led to his videotaped confession was not clearly erroneous. (2) Waiver.

D.C. Appleseed Center for Law & Justice, Inc. v. District of Columbia Department of Insurance, Securities, & Banking

54 A.3d 1188 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 13, 2012

The requirement that the decision be fully and clearly explained also is necessary for meaningful judicial review of and deference to the agency’s decision. … 394 , did not have standing because "the purported diminishment of petitioners' effectiveness as voters as a result of the [candidate’s] campaign's advertisement” was neither concrete nor sufficiently particularized to qualify