Case law

Johnson v. United States

613 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

United States v. Facon

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 26, 2023

and sentence- modification proceedings.” 57 Like the statutory provision before the Court in Dillon, the compassionate release statute authorizes “only a limited adjustment to an otherwise final sentence” when specific qualifying … circumstances are established. 58 55 Brief of PDS at 15 n.9 (quoting Williams v.

Veney v. United States

681 A.2d 428 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1996

We will not assume Congress to have intended such a departure from well-established doctrine without a clear expression to disavow it. … The trial judge clearly regarded the case as "difficult."

RICHARD WALKER WILLIAMS v. UNITED STATES

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 7, 2016

Dusky v.  14 United States, 362 U.S. 402 (1960) (per curiam) (establishing the two-part test for competency to stand trial); see also Drope v. … Godwin, a qualified expert who had daily interactions with appellant. Dr. Godwin was a clinical administrator psychologist at St. Elizabeth Hospital during appellant‟s time there.

Williams v. United States

205 A.3d 837 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 11, 2019

The United States concedes that an aggregate term-of-years sentence for multiple offenses qualifies as "de facto" LWOP for purposes of Miller and Montgomery if it precludes parole consideration for a period of time clearly … observation has little bearing here, where not only are "constitutional considerations" and the Supreme Court's articulation of the relevant requirements of the Eighth Amendment at the forefront, but also the IRAA itself clearly

Nwaneri v. Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan, LLP

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 20, 2021

Nwaneri does not qualify as a consumer, but also argues that this court should not consider Dr. Nwaneri’s belated argument. Following our ordinary practice, we decline to consider this issue. See, e.g., Hollins v. … My Pillow, Inc., 115 N.E.3d 923, 929, 929‒30 (Ill. 2018) (relying on precedent establishing “that a lawyer representing himself or herself simply does not incur legal fees” to hold that a self-represented law firm is “not

Michael A. Jones v. United States

202 A.3d 1154 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 7, 2019

The court found Agent Fram qualified to testify as an expert in hair and fiber analysis. Fram’s testimony extended to sixty-three pages of trial transcript. … “This illustrates not only the imprecision of microscopic hair analyses,” the Report observed, “but also the problem with using imprecise reporting terminology such as ‘associated with,’ which is not clearly defined and which

Holiday v. United States

683 A.2d 61 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1996

Sellers of crack cocaine who. qualified for the addict exception were not subject to mandatory minimum sentencing at all. … The qualifying addict who sold crack would not be affected by the mandatory minimum, however high or low it may be set.

In re A.T.J. & L.D.J.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2021

As we will demonstrate, however, this general requirement does not mean that every natural parent automatically qualifies for the presumption (sometimes called a preference). … In contrast to appellant’s case, the record in In re D.S. demonstrated that the natural father had played a significant role in the children’s lives and clearly desired to take custody of them.

FRIENDS OF MCMILLAN PARK, MCMILLAN COALITION FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, and DC FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ZONING COMMISSION and MAYOR'S AGENT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, and VISION MCMILLAN PARTNERS, LLC, Intervenor.

149 A.3d 1027 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 2016

“[A] proposed amenity [must] meet a high standard in order to qualify as a ‘special merit’ project, the construction of which would warrant demolition of a building of historical significance.” … However, mere compliance with applicable zoning requirements is not enough to establish ‘special features of land planning.’”); cf.

Etheredge v. District of Columbia

635 A.2d 908 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1993

Johnson concluded that this was an “improper shooting,” that the arrest was “clearly improper,” and that “the training in this case was improper.” … A police officer has a qualified privilege to use reasonable force to effect an arrest, provided that the means employed are not “in excess of those which the actor reasonably believes to be necessary.”

A.C. v. N.W.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 2017

Lopez was qualified to testify as an expert in clinical mental health, and although he made occasional objections (many of which were sustained), he did not object (or asserted only a general relevance or form objection) … New evidence of abuse would also clearly be relevant to the determination.

Bond v. Serano

566 A.2d 47 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1989

As the United States Supreme Court said in a case involving a federal cause of action: [Statute of limitations] periods are established to cut off rights, justifiable or not, that might otherwise be asserted and they must … Having taken a chance that jurisdiction would be sustained and lost, it hardly seems inequitable to deny plaintiff relief from his mistake when filing suit in Superior Court was clearly open to him from the outset. .

Multi-Family Management, Inc. v. Hancock

664 A.2d 1210 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1995

We recognize, as amicus points out, that sovereign immunity might inhibit such an effort if HUD were to resist joinder. … With that right clearly established, I agree with Judge Farrell that the equitable power of the trial court would justify an order that such payment be made by the landlord.

Frazier v. DC DOES

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 2020

As noted above, in 7 DCMR § 101.4, ORM clearly indicated its intent to apply § 156.1 to pending cases. … In particular, petitioner has not shown that a substitute procedural mechanism was needed to afford her an meaningful opportunity to be heard on the issue of whether she has a permanent impairment qualifying for a schedule

Jackson v. United States

650 A.2d 659 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 1994

Proving the intent sufficient for a conviction of assault to kill while armed requires the government to establish evidence of specific "intent to kill." D.C.Code § 22-501 (1989); see Logan v. … The evidence was clearly sufficient to support an instruction for assault with intent to kill. Under the circumstances, the rigorous standard for demonstrating plain error has not been met.

Macklin v. Johnson

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2022

In sum, our review of the record reveals no “clearly erroneous findings of fact,” and we conclude that the court’s ultimate custody decision is supported by a careful analysis of the seventeen statutory factors. … The trial court did not treat the family home as marital property, but instead correctly determined that the house qualifies as Mr.

Hercules & Co. v. Shama Restaurant Corp.

566 A.2d 31 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 1989

We are also mindful of the fact that, if the claim of fraud were to be established with respect to the arbitration clause itself, then there would be no valid agreement to arbitrate, and the policies favoring arbitration … In order to qualify for that exception, the order must (1) conclusively determine the disputed question, (2) resolve an important issue completely separate from the merits of the action, and (3) be effectively unre-viewable

Macklin v. Johnson

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2022

In sum, our review of the record reveals no “clearly erroneous findings of fact,” and we conclude that the court’s ultimate custody decision is supported by a careful analysis of the seventeen statutory factors. … The trial court did not treat the family home as marital property, but instead correctly determined that the house qualifies as Mr.

In Re Artis

883 A.2d 85 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2005

However, as the Board recognized, respondent’s letter clearly went much further than that. … "The work-product doctrine ... creates a ‘qualified privilege’ for materials prepared by an attorney (or attorney’s agent) in anticipation of trial.” Parks v.