Case law
Opinions from 1658 to today.
1,857 results
1.75s
454 A.2d 776 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1982
This explanation clearly indicated that expert testimony to that effect was credited. … Both types of considerations were clearly founded upon more than ample record evidence.
Cited 26 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2018
Bereston‘s role was, in part, that of a compliance officer does not mean she was immune from questioning and critical evaluation of her 58 See, e.g., Simpson v. … For any new exception, Carl established two criteria: (1) a ―clear showing‖ that ―a new exception is needed,‖ derived from an ―identifiable policy . . .
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 2020
Fleming’s conduct would have to be in order to qualify as substantial. Cf. … But the aims of tort law (to establish who should bear the burden of loss) and criminal law (to punish) are clearly different. See Campbell v. State, 444 A.2d 1034, 1041 (Md. 1982).
Cited 0 timesPublishedHarrell E. Hagans, Brion X. Arrington, Warren N. Allen and Gary A. Leaks v. United States
96 A.3d 1 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2014
For one thing, the record does not show clearly that the Akins rule was violated by the admission of the hearsay statements at issue here. … The evidence also would have been admissible to establish the motive for the May 17 shootings.
Cited 22 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 8, 2021
The mugshot display barely qualifies as an identification procedure at all. As the prosecutor acknowledged at trial, it was only “for lack of a better term” that she described this as an identification procedure. … Such an expansion would mean a single identification by one witness would immunize all identifications that follow—from any witness, no matter how suggestive the procedures used to obtain them—from constitutional scrutiny
Cited 0 timesPublishedUnited States ex rel. Halstead v. Wyman
13 D.C. 368 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 28, 1883
Peters, the court only decided that letters of administration de bonis non cum testamento annexo granted in the District of Columbia on the personal estate of a non-resident'upon the allegation that the executors who had qualified … of 1812, therefore, which, according to this statement of the court, had worked so marked a change in the general principles of the law of administration as to •convert local, assets into general assets ; and such words, clearly
Cited 0 timesPublished930 A.2d 232 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2007
The Supreme Court has delineated a two-step process which is to be employed in identifying which errors, though unobjected to at trial, will qualify for appellate relief. … This requires a determination of whether the claimed error was clearly at odds with established and settled law. See id.
Cited 55 timesPublished927 A.2d 1106 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2007
Lindsay, who was qualified at trial as an expert in child sexual abuse, testified that A.A.’s hymen was “interrupted,” i.e., a portion of the hymen was missing. In Dr. … For the reasons summarized in footnote 12, supra, we are constrained to agree with the Cosío I panel that this finding is clearly erroneous.
Cited 37 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2020
On March 26, 2015, this court decided the appeal, (…continued) qualifies as an intrafamily offense if it was committed against a person to whom the offender is or was related through blood; adoption; legal custody; marriage … In my opinion, all this clearly adds up to establish a cognizable danger that Mr. Salvattera will sexually assault, threaten, or harass Ms.
Cited 0 timesPublishedDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2023
Nelbach had a well-established obligation to pay the taxes on the property. … But outside of this core grounding in physical, lasting damage, the outer bounds of what qualifies as waste are less well defined.
Cited 0 timesPublished731 A.2d 415 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1999
Clearly, this falls within the routine booking question exception. 101 F.3d at 1274 (emphasis added). 18 In our view, the present case is similar to Parra, Timbers and Stevens , but distinguishable from Brown and D’Anjou … The testimony established, and the judge found, that on the day of his arrest, Thomas was not quite twenty-four years old. Thomas had completed the eleventh grade.
Cited 50 timesPublished711 A.2d 826 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 14, 1998
Morrissey, 668 A.2d 792, 796 (D.C.1995), whereas findings of fact are reviewed under the "clearly erroneous" standard, In re L.L., 653 A.2d 873 , 880 (D.C. 1995). … The court continued, [The child] had been visiting regularly with the [Wilsons] for a year at that point and [the mother] knew that a relationship had been established.
Cited 0 timesPublished669 A.2d 731 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995
Patterson:] That’s the tough call for me, and quite honestly I think if someone were to say they could distinguish it very clearly that that would be difficult for me to accept only because of not having the face to face … In In re Kersey, supra, and its progeny, however, we have recognized certain situations where the most egregious misconduct may qualify for mitigation.
Cited 17 timesPublishedParker & Jenkins v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2021
United States, 113 A.3d 554, 560-61 (D.C. 2015) (noting that to establish robbery under 11 D.C. … We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and will reverse only if the court’s exercise of discretion is clearly erroneous. See Kozlovska v. United States, 30 A.3d 799, 801 (D.C. 2011).
Cited 0 timesPublished918 A.2d 362 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 2007
Burka to bring the Elgins in as third-party defendants in the Crestar lawsuit or to in some way legally establish that she was relieved of financial liability. … Their attempts to do so were clearly highly unethical, but not as serious as Mr. Elgin’s misconduct. Mr.
Cited 35 timesPublishedParker & Jenkins v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2021
United States, 113 A.3d 554, 560-61 (D.C. 2015) (noting that to establish robbery under 11 D.C. … We review a trial court’s evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion and will reverse only if the court’s exercise of discretion is clearly erroneous. See Kozlovska v. United States, 30 A.3d 799, 801 (D.C. 2011).
Cited 0 timesPublishedSarete, Inc. v. 1344 U Street Ltd. Partnership
871 A.2d 480 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 2005
The Management Agreement does not qualify as an assignment. Rather, its focus is on Ms. … Touelde argue that had they not been dismissed as plaintiffs, they could have established damages for all plaintiffs. Mr. Samuel and Ms.
Cited 33 timesPublished52 A.3d 836 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 20, 2012
Having established these basic legal principles, we turn to the facts of this case. … O’Brien was decided on the basis that the trial judge did not clearly err in finding that the witness’s testimony had not been "perjured” or "knowingly *846 false.” 962 A.2d at 315-16 .
Cited 29 timesPublished613 A.2d 888 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1992
Townes' testimony about appellant's use of the hot iron that resulted in the serious burns to her chest and abdomen clearly shows appellant had established the iron as a dangerous weapon before the rape. Cf. Harris v. … If the judge concluded thus upon the evidence, then surely jurors could reasonably reach the same conclusion. [2] That a jury's collective knowledge and experiences combine to create a formidable body peculiarly qualified
Cited 25 timesPublishedJonathan Blades v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 23, 2019
Musladin, 549 U.S. 70 (2006) (pertaining to the meaning of “clearly established federal law”)). 18 was in lieu of closure of the courtroom and did not violate the defendant’s public … Miller, 537 F.3d 102, 110 (2d Cir. 2008) (holding that the proposed use of a screen during an undercover officer’s testimony did not violate clearly established federal law where the state courts properly applied the Waller
Cited 0 timesPublished
Ask Donna