Case law

Emanuel Jenkins and Azariah Israel v. United States

80 A.3d 978 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 12, 2013

Hansen, 562 N.W.2d 840, 848 (Neb. 1997) (“[T]he rule is well established that before the trier of fact may consider testimony under the coconspirator exception to the hearsay rule, a prima facie case establishing the existence … The finding that Jenkins and Israel conspired with the specific intent to prevent Evans from testifying was not clearly erroneous.

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.

Jefferson v. United States

631 A.2d 13 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1993

Johnson, 873 F.2d 1137 , 1139 n. 1, 1140 (8th Cir.1989), cert. denied, 498 U.S. 924 , 111 S.Ct. 304 , 112 L.Ed.2d 257 (1990). [10] Clearly, the presence of Blacks on a jury panel does not prevent a defendant from establishing … . [13] A prima facie case for a Title VII claim of racial discrimination has also been described as requiring a plaintiff to show: (i) that [she or] he belongs to a racial minority; (ii) that [she or] he applied and was qualified

Office of the People's Counsel v. Public Service Commission

21 A.3d 985 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2011

In addition, we conclude, because section 34-1118(c) contains a “[w]hen necessary” qualifier, the Commission was incorrect in asserting in its rulings under review that section 34-1118(c) grants it “broad authority” to fashion … Interstate Commerce Comm’n, 713 F.2d 305 , 310 (7th Cir.1983) ("The term 'appropriate' clearly denotes discretion[.]”). 22 .

District of Columbia v. Kora & Williams Corp.

743 A.2d 682 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1999

We are not persuaded that these findings are clearly erroneous. See D.C.Code § 17~S05(a) (1997). … The Board separately found that the District had waived the original contract completion dates and failed to establish valid new ones.

Morten v. United States

856 A.2d 595 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2004

Under the test for constitutional harmless error established by Chapman v. … That is to say, we are not satisfied that it is “clearly beyond a reasonable doubt that a rational jury would have found the defendants] guilty absent the errors.”

Revithes v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission

536 A.2d 1007 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1987

The agency clearly recognizes that commercial units which are not used as residences are not to be counted in determining the aggregate number. 23 . … An amendment to the 1985 Act, however, clearly authorizes the RACD and RHC to impose fines. See note 35, infra, and accompanying text. 32 .

Glass v. United States

395 A.2d 796 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1978

Because the evidence established much more than mere presence at the scene, we reject their contentions. … Under this provision, clearly appellant’s 1963 conviction is admissible.

In Re Dt

977 A.2d 346 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2009

It quite clearly does. In this jurisdiction, the term "weapon" includes "any instrument of offense; anything used, or designed to be used, in attacking an enemy." Tatum v. United States, 71 App. … "In a bench trial, this court `will not reverse unless an appellant has established that the trial court's factual findings are plainly wrong or without evidence to support them.'" Bacchus v.

Thomas v. United States

650 A.2d 183 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1994

We have found no cases where the application of these two principles has produced the clearly different results reached here. … Thus, where the government has established usability it will also have established measurability. 47 .

GEORGE WALKER, OFFICE OF THE CHIEF INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY OFFICER

127 A.3d 524 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 25, 2015

But the agency clearly has the burden of showing that he didn’t exercise reasonable mitigation efforts . . . . .... ALJ: Call your first witness. Mr. … Walker that because annual leave is mentioned explicitly in the FBPA, it qualifies as a “concrete statutory entitlement” under the Act, and the District was not free to enact a less generous rule without supplanting the

Prost v. Greene

652 A.2d 621 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 5, 1995

In this case the judge found that both parents “clearly love their children very much” and had been involved continuously in their nurturing. … But their efforts were unavailing and, ultimately, they entered into a succession of Consent Orders continuing the TPO and establishing visitation rights for defendant.

Newman v. District of Columbia

518 A.2d 698 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1986

In the event of ambiguity, we follow the presumption that the legislature does not intend to take away common law rights unless that purpose is clearly expressed in the statute. … The analogy to the Human Rights Act is imperfect because Title VII applied to the context of private employment and thus did not implicate sovereign immunity.

In re T.B.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 2025

“is clearly the person depicted” in both the first and the second video.  14 the discovery” of the tan-gold-in-color pistol on the ground below where T.B. had been standing in front … State, 890 A.2d 288, 292-93 (Md. 2006) (holding that, under Maryland’s rules of evidence, a police officer need not be qualified as an expert at the suppression hearing because the rules of evidence do not apply).

Tyer v. United States

912 A.2d 1150 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2006

According *1163 ly, we have twice suggested that “the harm that may occur even if the jury should credit prior consistent statements is less serious than the inadmissible introduction of clearly prejudicial evidence.” ... … inference was an abuse of discretion, given that appellant urged a far more extreme inference upon the jury at trial.” 17 Moreover, having also presided over a trial that lasted for several days, the trial judge was uniquely qualified

United States v. Bigelow

14 D.C. 393 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1884

The meaning which we have imputed to Perez’s case is clearly recognized in Ex parte Lange. … Clearly the Constitution cannot be said to include the equivalent of a former trial and acquittal, when the means of ascertaining that equivalent are not governed by it.

GORDON C. CARPENTER and TYRONE P. JONES v. UNITED STATES

144 A.3d 1141 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2016

Recognizing that this was a felony case and that the defendants therefore would not qualify for work release after sentencing, Judge Broderick provided the defendants with the option of either earning incarceration credit … error for judge to ―undertak[e] an off-the-record investigation to (continued…)  22 Although it clearly

Durham v. United States

743 A.2d 196 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1999

Having been qualified as an expert in the subject of distribution of illicit drugs, he testified that the cocaine found on Alfred Durham contained a total of .360 grams of crack cocaine of 79 percent strength. … The pronouncements in all three cases clearly preclude a reversal herein today. Finally, appellant urges us to rule in his favor by following the suggestions in the dissenting opinion in Lowman v.

Lewis v. United States

430 A.2d 528 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 5, 1981

The request for a continuance was clearly too late under Super.Ct. … Without it, though he be not guilty, he faces the danger of conviction because he does not know how to establish his innocence.

United States v. Debruhl

993 A.2d 571 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2010

Justice Stevens, writing for the majority, did not disagree with this conclusion but instead noted the limited impact this would have because "the doctrine of qualified immunity will shield officers from liability for searches … Chanthasowcat, 342 F.3d 1271, 1280 (11th Cir.2003) ("[T]he good faith exception established by United States v.