Case law

STONEWALL CONSTRUCTION COMPANY v. McLaughlin

151 A.2d 535 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 28, 1959

Guaranty Trust Co. of New York v. United States, 1938, 304 U.S. 126, 132-133 , 58 S.Ct. 785 , 82 L.Ed. 1224 . . National Rifle Ass’n of America v. Young, 1943, 77 U.S.App.D.C. 290, 291 , 134 F.2d 524, 525 . . … Atlantic Cleaners & Dyers v. United States, 1932, 286 U.S. 427 , 52 S.Ct. 607 , 76 L.Ed. 1204 . . See also, Hake v. Warren, 1947, 184 Tenn. 372 , 199 S.W.2d 102 ; cf. Eureka Printing Co. v.

Yelverton v. United States

904 A.2d 383 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2006

The government concedes that, in light of our holding in Brown v. … See Chapman v.

Eason v. United States

687 A.2d 922 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1996

A Browning automatic .22 with a sawed off barrel was found in a back pack behind a door in the apartment. … Rich, 481 A.2d 464, 470 (D.C.1984) (noting that arguably the witness, an alcohol control board member, did not offer opinion testimony but merely testified as to what hap *925 pened at a meeting and how the board reacted

District of Columbia v. Gandy

466 A.2d 851 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1983

jacket and brown pants. … See Gabrou v. May Department Stores Co., 462 A.2d 1102 (D.C.1983); Dent v. May Department Stores Co., 459 A.2d 1042 (D.C.1982); Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Kelly, 448 A.2d 856 (D.C.1982); Prieto v.

In Re Kanu

5 A.3d 1 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 2010

Zacarias v. … Patterson v.

In Re Ditton

980 A.2d 1170 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2009

See State v. Ditton, 333 Mont. 483 , 144 P.3d 783 (2006) (affirming conviction for DUI offense which occurred in 2002); State v. … Smith, 472 U.S. 479, 484 , 105 S.Ct. 2787 , 86 L.Ed.2d 384 (1985) (quoting Bill Johnson’s Restaurants, Inc. v. NLRB, 461 U.S. 731, 743 , 103 S.Ct. 2161 , 76 L.Ed.2d 277 (1983)). 4 .

Jenkins v. District of Columbia

379 A.2d 1177 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 1977

Appellant’s argument is contrary to the decisions of this court in Miller v. Spencer, D.C.App., 330 A.2d 250 (1974), and Brown v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 304 A.2d 292 (1973). … Miller v. Spencer, supra at 252. The police report in the present case is of the same nature as the one rejected in Brown as inadequate to notify the District.

Matter of Williams

464 A.2d 115 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1983

April 15, 1981) (per curiam Order); Graham v. District of Columbia, 127 A.2d 150 (D.C.1956); Perlich v. District of Columbia, 90 A.2d 227 (D.C.1952); United States v. Davis, 18 App.D.C. 280 (1901). … This is the rationale employed by the Supreme Court in Klapprott v.

Montgomery v. District of Columbia

598 A.2d 162 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1991

District of Columbia v. Gray, 452 A.2d 962, 965 (D.C.1982). 3 Concluding that a “renewed proceeding before the Board ... … Co. v.

Billy Zhao Zhen Zhang v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer

834 A.2d 97 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 2003

Harrison v. Board of Trs. of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 758 A.2d 19, 22 (D.C.2000). … We do not suggest through this opinion any view as to what the Board’s judgment should be in this ease. V.

In Re Susman

876 A.2d 637 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 2005

A detailed discussion of the underlying facts may be found in United States v. Helbling, 209 *638 F.3d 226 (3d Cir.2000). 2 . See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Susman, 357 Md. 373 , 744 A.2d 548 (2000). … See, e.g., Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. Susman, 568 Pa. 302 , 795 A.2d 957 (2002); Florida Bar v. Susman, 767 So.2d 463 (Fla.2000).

In re Blair

40 A.3d 883 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2012

of obstruction of justice, in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1503 (a) (2000). 1 The events that led to Blair’s convictions are set forth in detail in United States v. … APPENDIX REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY This matter is before the Board on Professional Responsibility (the “Board”) pursuant to an order of the District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Hiligh v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

935 A.2d 1070 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 8, 2007

See generally District of Columbia v. … As there is no provision in the District’s statute from which the Board’s interpretation can reasonably arise, we conclude that the Board’s conclusion is legally erroneous. Weaver Bros. v.

Howard University Hospital v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

994 A.2d 375 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 6, 2010

Kovac v. … Smith v.

Greenfield v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2025

Brown v. United States, 313 A.3d 555, 560 (D.C. 2024) (quoting Bingman v. United States, 267 A.3d 1084, 1087 (D.C. 2022)). … While “[p]robable cause cannot be based on a ‘hunch’ or ‘gut’ feeling,” In re T.H., 898 A.2d 908, 912 (D.C. 2006) (quoting (Marvin) Brown v.

Keene v. United States

661 A.2d 1073 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1995

See Brown v. United States, 409 A.2d 1093, 1099 (D.C.1979) (evidence is relevant where it “will tend to establish a material proposition in the case”). … See Lawrence v.

Joseph v. United States

926 A.2d 1156 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 28, 2007

M; see, e.g., Peay v. United States, 597 A.2d 1318, 1320 (D.C.1991) (en banc). The court’s legal conclusions on Fourth Amendment issues, however, are “subject to de novo review.” Brown v. … Brown, 590 A.2d at 1014 ; see United States v.

In Re Peek

565 A.2d 627 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1989

The Board on Professional Responsibility found respondent had neglected a legal matter entrusted to him, DR 6 — 101(A)(3), had intentionally failed to seek a client’s lawful objectives, DR V — 101(A)(1), and had engaged in … V. Respondent has not contested the proposed stay, coupled with imposition of a two-year probation (including monitoring by medical and professional experts). We are required, nonetheless, to review its suitability.

MARLON WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES

130 A.3d 343 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2016

Brown’s testimonial hearsay statements, we conclude that their erroneous admission was harmless. See Duvall v. United States, 975 A.2d 839, 843 (D.C.2009) (applying the test for harmless error under Chapman v. … (quoting United States v. Brown, 352 F.3d 654, 664 (2d Cir.2003))). Mr. Williams has made no argument that the trial court plainly erred on this basis. .

Crews v. United States

389 A.2d 277 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 14, 1978

Brown v. Illinois, 422 U.S. 590 , 601 n.6, 95 S.Ct. 2254, 2261 , 45 L.Ed.2d *285 416 (1975). … As the Court indicated in Brown v.