Case law

Chapline v. Independent Taxi Owners Ass'n

1 D.C. 49 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 1933

The establishment and administration of a fund of this very nature, denominated a “sinking or reserve fund,” was declared to be one of the purposes of incorporation. … If the contentions made to that end were upheld, it would, in large measure, afford immunity from liability and invite evasion of legal responsibility.

District of Columbia v. Patterson

667 A.2d 1338 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1995

The Supreme Court has, in several cases, defined who qualifies as a “prevailing party” under § 1988. In Hanrahan v. … However, the Court cautioned that fees for interlocutory relief was limited: “it seems clearly to have been the intent of Congress to permit such an interlocutory award only to a party who has established his entitlement

MorphoTrust USA, Inc. v. District of Columbia Contract Appeals Board

115 A.3d 571 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 28, 2015

Rather, on the issue of establishing the Board, the Council observed that the Board’s predecessor was “established by executive order, and the functions for the Board as provided in the bill are similar to the current functions … This court’s cases regarding government immunity also provide us with some guidance. In Casco Manna Dev., L.L.C. v.

Martin v. Ross

6 A.3d 860 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 2010

While he had not been qualified as an expert previously, his extensive experience as an attorney was sufficient to qualify him as an expert witness. 6 Finally, the appellants argue that Mrs. … Donaldson, 933 A.2d 282 (D.C.2007), but that case is clearly distinguishable.

John Doe No. 1 v. Susan L. Burke

91 A.3d 1031 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 29, 2014

But we conclude that the former also confers an immunity of a sort from suit. See supra p. 7-8. … Here, the trial court found that Zujua failed to establish a prima facie case that his speech met this statutory definition both because (1) he did not establish that Ms.

District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics v. District of Columbia

520 A.2d 671 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 20, 1986

Sovereign immunity shall not bar actions to enforce rights established by this chapter. … The division opinion establishes that the initiative creates an entitlement.

Price v. United States

531 A.2d 984 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1987

The prosecutor’s request clearly contradicted an earlier statement that the government had no intention to seek an instruction or to argue the adverse inference. … However, the denial was qualified in that the court stated the government could argue the evidence.

D. C. Transit Systems, Inc. v. Simpkins

367 A.2d 107 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 13, 1976

by equally creditable and qualified expert medical opinion”. … to the qualifications of its author was clearly for the purpose of supporting plaintiff’s claim by expert testimony.

Norton & Co. v. District of Columbia

173 A.2d 482 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1961

It was also established that the vertical height of the trailer, under the same load conditions as the day of the accident, was 12 feet 4 inches. … We believe the distinction applies to this case and clearly indicates that the tree limb did not constitute a nuisance. Affirmed. . Statement of Proceedings and Evidence,

Columbia First Bank v. Ferguson

665 A.2d 650 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 28, 1995

These facts, many of which were admitted by Ferguson, were also established by testimony at trial and were clearly sufficient to give rise to a suspicion of criminal activity warranting referral to the OTS pursuant to 12 … Although the checked boxes could possibly lead the reader to the mistaken understanding that Ferguson stole the money, the reader was also referred by asterisks to the four-page narrative which clearly described the events

Schramm v. Physical Therapists Examining Board

219 A.2d 846 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1966

Following the hearing held on February 26, 1965, at which petitioner alone testified as to her qualifications, respondent found that she did not qualify under the statute, and again rejected her application. … While we may agree that the purpose of such a clause is to establish a standard for licensing without examination those who have acceptably followed a profession for a period of years, a careful reading of Section 2-458 clearly

Dillard v. Yeldell

334 A.2d 578 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 17, 1975

Looking to the early cases for the established “usage”, we find: In the case of Kendall v. … Commenting upon the immunity of the government from costs incurred in litigation, the Florida courts have observed, and we agree: We are aware of decisions holding the State and its agencies immune from taxation of costs

Strass v. Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic

744 A.2d 1000 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 20, 2000

It is difficult to comprehend how the non-contractual qualifier in the beginning of the Manual can be viewed reasonably to abrogate what clearly appear to be obligations of the employer and employee of this type. … But unless the plaintiff has established by a preponderance of all the evidence that Kaiser clearly planned to abandon the disclaimer and enter into a new agreement with the plaintiff, your verdict on the plaintiff’s contract

In re Ta.L.

75 A.3d 122 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2013

CFSA also did not make any attempts to contact E.A. and qualify her as a kinship placement. … The non-favored petitioner bears the burden of establishing that placing the children with the parents’ preferred caregiver would be clearly contrary to the children’s best interest.

Duggan v. District of Columbia

783 A.2d 563 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 11, 2001

gross negligence; and (2) the evidence established that the officer was not' on an emergency run, and therefore, an ordinary negligence standard applied. … George Kirkham was qualified as an expert in the field of criminology. Dr.

McClellan v. United States

706 A.2d 542 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 1997

United States, 684 A.2d 331, 344-45 (D.C.1996) (en banc) (“If immunity of the crucial defense witness is then sought, the defendant must first establish to the trial court’s satisfaction that the proposed testimony is (a) … material, (b) clearly exculpatory, (c) non-cumulative, and (d) unobtainable from any other source.

Graves v. United States

472 A.2d 395 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1984

*403 MACK, Associate Judge, dissenting: In my view, a simple restatement of the facts will point out, as clearly as any legal argument, why I cannot join the majority in affirming appellant’s conviction for criminal contempt … Where the taint has been established, there is no point in holding an evidentiary hearing on its existence vel non. United States v. Kember, supra, 208 U.S.App.D.C. at 389 , 648 F.2d at 1363 (emphasis supplied).

Glorious Food, Inc. v. Georgetown Prospect Place Associates

648 A.2d 946 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1994

Gill was not qualified to testify as an expert on the valuation of restaurant equipment. After the trial court declined to qualify Mr. … Clearly, expert testimony on the valuation of restaurant equipment would have been useful in establishing damages in the instant case.

Hammond v. Weekes

621 A.2d 838 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 12, 1993

. *842 While Hammond does not argue that the trial court’s denial of his motion for waiver of costs was a final order entitled to review in this court under D.C.Code § 11-721(a)(1) (1989 Repl.), he does claim that.it qualified … White, 571 A.2d 790 (D.C.1990) (finding appellate jurisdiction for interlocutory review of denial of motion to dismiss on grounds of constitutional immunity).

Saunders v. United States

317 A.2d 867 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 1, 1974

Appellant contends that the government was required to qualify the witness as an expert before he could express an opinion as to value. … But assuming, arguendo, that the wholesale, rather than the retail, value of the articles is controlling, the testimony clearly establishes that the value of the articles here involved was well in excess of $100.