Case law

Burtoff v. Faris

935 A.2d 1086 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2007

Co. v. Brown, 817 A.2d 806, 809 (D.C.2003); see also Beard, supra note 3, 790 A.2d at 546. … Montgomery v. Jimmy’s Tire & Auto Ctr., 566 A.2d 1025, 1029 (D.C.1989). See also Williams v. Board of Trustees of Mount Jezreel Baptist Church, 589 A.2d 901, 911 (D.C.1991); King v. King, 579 A.2d 659, 666 (D.C.1990).

In Re Marshall

762 A.2d 530 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2000

The Florida Bar v. Clement, 662 So.2d 690, 700 (Fla.1995); accord, People v. Reynolds, supra note 13, 933 P.2d at 1305; State Bar Ass’n v. … . *540 To paraphrase and adapt to this case the reasoning of the Supreme Court of Colorado in People v.

Customers Parking, Inc. v. District of Columbia

562 A.2d 651 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1989

If “aggrieved” for any reason, the taxpayer must appeal within the permitted time to the Board of Equalization and Review. District of Columbia v. … Partnership v.

In Re Zentz

891 A.2d 277 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2006

No exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation have been filed. … Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Zentz, 371 Md. 152 , 807 A.2d 48 (2002). The sanctions arose in essence from respondent haying assisted a disbarred attorney in filing papers in the United States Bankruptcy Court.

Basiliko v. Government of the District of Columbia

283 A.2d 816 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1971

The facts are as follows: In June 1968 the Board of Condemnation for Insanitary Buildings (hereinafter called the Board) inspected a house at 1101 46th Street, N. … Kunzig, 140 U.S.App.D.C. 98 , 433 F.2d 1204 (1970), cert. denied, National Industries for Blind v. Ballerina Pen Co., 401 U.S. 950 , 951 S.Ct. 1186 , 28 L.Ed.2d 234 (1971), and in Scanwell Laboratories, Inc. v.

Gomillion v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

447 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 1982

Temporaries Inc. v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, D.C.App., 304 A.2d 14, 17 (1973). … Washington Post Co. v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, supra. See also Stewart v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C.App., 305 A.2d 516, 518 (1973).

Karath v. Generalis

277 A.2d 650 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 28, 1971

Local Union, 346 U.S. 485 , 74 S.Ct. 161 , 98 L.Ed. 228 (1953) and Guss v. Utah Labor Relations Board, 353 U.S. 1 , 77 S.Ct. 598 , 1 L.Ed.2d 601 (1957). … See also N.L.R.B. v. Allis-Chalmers Mfg.

Matter of Addams

579 A.2d 190 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 1990

See also People v. … Comm’n v. Nisbett, 316 Md. 464 , 560 A.2d 18 (1989); Waysman v.

Harris v. Cafritz Memorial Hospital

364 A.2d 135 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 1976

Lathon v. Hadley Memorial Hospital, D.C.App., 250 A.2d 548, 549 (1969); Burke v. Washington Hospital Center, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 253, 254 , 475 F.2d 364, 365 (1973); Brown v. … See also Haven v. Randolph, supra; Brown v. Keaveny, supra; Rodgers v. Lawson, 83 U.S.App.D.C. 281 , 170 F.2d 157 (1948). 5 .

Goggins v. Hoddes

265 A.2d 302 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 5, 1970

PER CURIAM: Appellant complained in the trial court that she was libelled when her employer filed an allegedly false report with the District Unemployment Compensation Board (hereinafter the Board) charging her with dishonesty … Simpson v. Oil Transfer Corporation, 75 F.Supp. 819 (N.D.N.Y.1948); Breuer v. Bo-Craft Enterprises, 8 Misc.2d 736 , 170 N.Y.S.2d 631 (1957); Stafney v.

Hughes-Turner v. D.C. Dep't of Employment Services

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 2022

Brown v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp. Servs., 83 A.3d 739, 743 n.6 (D.C. 2014) (citations omitted). “Non-schedule” permanent partial benefits are capped at 500 weeks. D.C. … See Hiligh v.

In Re De Maio

893 A.2d 583 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 2, 2006

We adopt the Board’s recommendation. I. … Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. DeMaio, 379 Md. 571 , 842 A.2d 802 (2004). II.

In Re Sumner

762 A.2d 528 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2000

The Board recognized that where neither Bar Counsel nor the respondent opposes the imposition of the identical discipline, the Board’s inquiry is a limited one. In re Spann, 711 A.2d 1262, 1265 (D.C.1998). … Moore v. Illinois, 408 U.S. 786, 799 , 92 S.Ct. 2562 , 33 L.Ed.2d 706 (1972); Schmerber v. California, 384 U.S. 757 , 765 n. 9, 86 S.Ct. 1826 , 16 L.Ed.2d 908 (1966); United States v.

Owens v. Tiber Island Condominium Ass'n

373 A.2d 890 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 10, 1977

At the next Board meeting on March 26, 1974, Mr. … Poller v. Columbia Broadcasting System, Inc., 368 U.S. 464 , 82 S.Ct. 486 , 7 L.Ed.2d 458 (1962). There are no factual issues in dispute here.

District of Columbia v. Organization for Environmental Growth, Inc.

700 A.2d 185 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 28, 1997

Citing Kalvar Corp. v. … The Board relied heavily on Torncello v.

In Re Thomas

740 A.2d 538 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 1999

California Bankers Ass’n v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21, 55 , 94 S.Ct. 1494 , 39 L.Ed.2d 812 (1974) (citing Couch v. United States, 409 U.S. 322, 328 , 93 S.Ct. 611 , 34 L.Ed.2d 548 (1973); Johnson v. … Area Transit Auth. v. Reid, 666 A.2d 41, 44 (D.C.1995); Travelers Ins. Co. v. Haden, 418 A.2d 1078, 1081 (D.C.1980).

Urciolo v. Washington

305 A.2d 252 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1973

Trinity Methodist Church, South v. Federal Radio Com’n, 61 App.D.C. 311 , 62 F.2d 850 , cert. denied, 284 U.S. 685 , 52 S.Ct. 204 , 76 L.Ed. 579 (1932). See also Keyes v. … Berrigan v. Sigler, Chairman of the Board of Parole, et al., 475 F.2d 918 (D.C.Cir., 1978). .

In re Gumbinner

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 2025

underlying the 1 See Snyder v. … XI, § 9(h)(2), “if no exceptions are filed to the Board’s report, the [c]ourt will enter an order imposing the discipline recommended by the Board upon the expiration of the time permitted for filing exceptions.”

In Re Ontell

593 A.2d 1038 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1991

Based on the mitigating factors the Board recognized, we conclude that the Board’s recommended sanction — a thirty-day suspension — is not inappropriate. V. … Trial Lawyers v.

In Re Fitzgerald

982 A.2d 743 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2009

DeGroot, 939 A.2d 664 , 670 n. 5 (D.C.2008) (citing Duvall v. … Strickland v.