Case law

Jordan v. District of Columbia

362 A.2d 114 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 3, 1976

Hotel Association v. District of Columbia Minimum Wage and Industrial Safety Board, D.C.App., 318 A.2d 294 (1974). … Canney v. Board of Pub. Instruction of Alachua. Cty., 278 So.2d 260 (Fla.1973). 13 .

In Re Shariati

31 A.3d 81 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2011

Count V (T.O.) T.O. retained respondent in June 2003, to help bring her brother-in-law to the United States from Iran. … V. “The Board on Professional Responsibility’s proposed sanction comes to this court with a strong presumption in favor of its imposition.

Marriott at Wardman Park v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

85 A.3d 1272 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 6, 2014

The Board remanded the case to the ALJ, concluding that the ALJ had not properly assessed Gorham‟s work capacity and 2 See D.C. Code § 32-1508 (3)(V)(iii) (2012 Repl.) … Our standard of review mirrors that which the Board is bound to apply. See Marriott Int’l v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs.,  10 834 A.2d 882, 885-86 (D.C. 2003).

Matter of Goldberg

460 A.2d 982 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1983

Attorney Griev *984 ance Comm’n v. Goldberg, 292 Md. 650 , 441 A.2d 338 (1982). … District of Columbia v. Smith, 329 A.2d 128, 130 (D.C.1974) (citation omitted); accord, e.g., United States v.

Matthews Ex Rel. Matthews v. District of Columbia

875 A.2d 650 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 2005

Lawlor v. District of Columbia, 758 A.2d 964, 974 (D.C.2000) (quoting Auxier v. Kraisel, 466 A.2d 416, 418 (D.C.1983)). … See Oubre v.

Rickard v. District of Columbia

214 A.2d 476 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 1965

See Brown v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 170 A.2d 925 (1961); Tyrrell v. State, 173 Neb. 859 , 115 N.W.2d 459 (1962); Commonwealth v. Unger, 190 Pa.Super. 43 , 151 A.2d 782 (1959). … Brown v. District of Columbia, sqpra. Affirmed. 1 . D.C.Code 1961, § 40-302 (d). 2 .

Barry v. Bush

581 A.2d 308 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1990

Assoc. of Firefighters v. Cleveland, 478 U.S. 501, 515-24 , 106 S.Ct. 3063, 3071-76 , 92 L.Ed.2d 405 (1986); Berger v. Heckler, 771 F.2d 1556, 1568 (2d Cir.1985); see also D.D. v. … (Title V.) The Mayor and the City Council would be limited with respect to the budget of the Board of Education, however.

In re Blackwell

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 2026

Blackwell asserts that the Board committed errors of law and that its findings are not supported by substantial evidence, but he does not develop this argument, see Comford v. … We agree with the Board that the Hearing Committee was within its discretion in quashing both subpoenas. Cf. Russell v.

Jones v. Braxton

647 A.2d 1116 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 9, 1994

See White v. Hyman, 647 A.2d 1175 (D.C.1994); see also Kentucky Dept. of Corrections v. Thompson, 490 U.S. 454, 462-63 , 109 S.Ct. 1904, 1909-10 , 104 L.Ed.2d 506 (1989); Olim v. … Bennett v. Ridley, supra, 633 A.2d at 826 .

In Re Fowler

642 A.2d 1327 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1994

NEWMAN, Senior Judge: The Board on Professional Responsibility Board (Board or BPR) concluded that Fowler violated DR 7-101(A)(l) (intentionally failing to seek the lawful objectives of a client), and DR 9-103(B)(4) (failing … However, see Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354, 364 (D.C.1979) (exercise of discretion must be on principled basis). 5 . This suspension shall become effective thirty days from the date of this opinion.

Sousa v. United States

400 A.2d 1036 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1979

As they left the restaurant they encountered the decedent Johnnie Battle, Armón Allen, and Joseph Brown (the “Battle group”). … Brown began running towards Wisconsin and Fessenden where he saw Allen.

Braxton v. United States

852 A.2d 941 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 24, 2004

D.C.Code § 16-705(c); [Thalia] Brown v. United States, 818 A.2d 179, 184 (D.C.2003). … United States v. [Warren] Brown, 262 U.S.App. D.C. 183, 189, 823 F.2d 591, 597 (1987).

In Re Hutchinson

518 A.2d 995 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1986

See M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1971). The Board argues that the controlling case here is In re Wild, 361 A.2d 182 (D.C.1976). … We agree with the Board and decline to follow Cook . V It is therefore ORDERED that respondent, James D.

In Re Reback

487 A.2d 235 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1985

He recommended, however, that the Board increase the sanction to public censure. A majority of the Board saw the case differently. … Andolsun v. Berlitz Schools of Languages of America, Inc., 196 A.2d 926, 927 (D.C.1964). Certainly the status of Lewis’ case was a material fact.

In Re Thompson

583 A.2d 1006 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1990

See Martin v. Police & Firefighters Retirement and Relief Board, 532 A.2d 102, 109 (D.C.1987). … The same standard governs our review of the Board’s findings. Id. Substantial evidence means enough evidence for a reasonable mind to find sufficient to support the conclusion reached. Liberty v.

In Re Maxwell

798 A.2d 525 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 23, 2002

See Maxwell v. Gallagher, No. 88-10687 (D.C.Super.Ct. October 13, 1995). On appeal, this court sustained the order rescinding the stock transfers (but reversed an award of punitive damages). See Maxwell v. … Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Bear, 362 Md. 123 , 763 A.2d 175, 181 (2000).

Dano Resource Recovery, Inc. v. District of Columbia

620 A.2d 1346 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 1993

DeVito v. … Co. v.

Tutt v. Doby

265 A.2d 304 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 5, 1970

Brown v. Southall Realty Company, D.C.App., 237 A.2d 834, 836 (1968); Bess v. David, D.C.Mun.App., 140 A.2d 316, 317 (1958); David v. Nemerofsky, D.C.Mun.App., 41 A.2d 838, 839 (1945). … Brown v. Southall Realty Company, supra 237 A.2d at 836, n. 2 .

In Re Minninberg

485 A.2d 149 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1984

D.C.Bar R.XI, § 7 provides the appropriate standard for our review of the Board’s Report and Recommendation: [The] Court shall accept the findings of fact made by the Board unless they are unsupported by substantial evidence … See In re Willcher, 404 A.2d 185 (D.C.1979) (mental state and financial difficulties of respondent while relevant do not excuse theft); Henry v.

In Re Bereano

719 A.2d 98 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 29, 1998

States District Court for the District of Maryland, of eight counts of mail fraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 , 1346 and 2. 2 United States v. … Williams Dated: _ *100 All members of the Board concur in this Report and Recommendation except Mr. Fox, who did not participate. 1 . United States v. Bereano, Nos. 95-5312 & 95-5395, - F.3d - (4th Cir. Aug. 28, 1998).