Case law

In re Butler (Amended)

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2025

69 A.3d 390, 397 n.9 (D.C. 2013) (Bar Counsel was not required to call expert witness because whether respondent’s communications were false or misleading did not “require[] technical or specialized knowledge”); Liu v. … See generally, e.g., Miller v. United States, 209 A.3d 75, 80 (D.C. 2019) (declining to address issue that was not adequately briefed on appeal). C.

Providence Hospital v. Dorsey

634 A.2d 1216 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 15, 1993

At that hearing, the hospital presented a prima facie case of an implied in fact contract which would establish the underlying liability of appellee. 7 See Vereen v. Clayborne, 623 A.2d 1190, 1193 (D.C.1993); Brown v. … Brown v. Brown, supra, 524 A.2d at 1190 .

In Re Morrell

859 A.2d 644 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2004

XI, § 16(d)(1) and (2), as interpreted in Board Rule 9.1(a)(i) through (v). These factors were first explained in our decision in In re Roundtree, 503 A.2d 1215 (D.C.1985). … See M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1971). 6 . There is a slight difference between factor (3) in the Board’s instructions on the reinstatement questionnaire submitted by Mr.

Bolandz v. 1230-1250 Twenty-Third Street Condominium Unit Owners Ass'n

849 A.2d 1010 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 20, 2004

“Accordingly,” the court concluded, citing Johnson v. Hobson, 505 A.2d 1318 (D.C.1986), it “may not substitute its judgment for that of the Board.” Bolandz appealed the court’s' order to this court. II. … Ass’n, Inc., 844 A.2d 1126, 1137 (2004) (quoting Brehm v. Eisner, 746 A.2d 244 , 264 n. 66 (Del.2000)). .

Gamble v. United States

30 A.3d 161 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2011

Robertson v. Baldwin, 165 U.S. 275, 281-82 , 17 S.Ct. 326 , 41 L.Ed. 715 (1897) (dictum). Such laws recognize the particular danger posed by the carrying of concealed weapons. See, e.g., (Pomeroy) Brown v. … Riddick v. United States, 995 A.2d 212, 221-22 (D.C.2010) (citing (Manuel) Brown v. United States, 979 A.2d 630, 638-39 (D.C.2009); Howerton v. United States, 964 A.2d 1282, 1288 (D.C.2009); and Little v.

District of Columbia Bar v. Kleindienst

345 A.2d 146 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1975

The Board found specifically that respondent “was guilty of direct and repeated misrepresentations in answering persistent inquiries about White House involvement in Justice Department litigation against ITT.” *147 The Board … Selling v. Radford, 243 U.S. 46 , 37 S.Ct. 377 , 61 L.Ed. 585 ; Matter of Durant, 80 Conn. 140, 147 , 67 A. 497 , 10 Ann.Cas. 539. Whenever the condition is broken the privilege is lost.

In re Washington

541 A.2d 1276 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 4, 1988

Espinosa, 771 F.2d 1382 (10th Cir.1985); United States v. Spaar, 748 F.2d 1249 (8th Cir.1984). These cases are distinguishable on their facts. … . *1277 None of the facts found by the Board is contested by respondent, who filed no brief either with the Board or with us.

In Re Anagnostiadis

765 A.2d 548 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 2001

Attorney Grievance Commission v. Anagnostiadis, 355 Md. 765 , 736 A.2d 345 (1999). … Bar Rule XI, § 11(d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) for its recommendation concerning reciprocal discipline.

In Re Ditton

954 A.2d 986 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2008

In February 2000, Judge Albert V. … Schware v. Board of Bar Examiners, 353 U.S. 232, 241 , 77 S.Ct. 752 , 1 L.Ed.2d 796 (1957). Similarly, a “charge” is not a conviction.

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).

McNeil v. Peoples Life Ins.

43 A.2d 293 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1945

Case Co. v. … V. R. Co. v. Webb, 5 Cir., 64 F.2d 902, 903 .

Dingwall v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority

766 A.2d 974 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2001

In Simmons v. District of Columbia Armory Bd., 656 A.2d 1155 (D.C.1995) (per curiam), the plaintiff purported to bring an action against the District of Columbia Armory Board. … As with the Housing Authority in Braxton [v. Nat’l Capital Rous. Awth., 396 A.2d 215, 217 (D.C.1978) ], Congress has not authorized the Armory Board to be sued. Id. at 1157.

Harrison v. United States

267 A.2d 368 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1970

Miler v. United States, D.C.App., 255 A.2d 497 (1969); see Gadsden v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 162 , 223 F.2d 627 (1955); GS Crim. Rule 32(a) ((1). 2 . … Number two is a Negro male, 18, to 20, 5' 6" to 5' 8", 150 lbs, close cut hair, brown pullover sweater, armed with a small dark revolver.” (Tr. 20) 3 .

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). .

Cauthen v. United States

592 A.2d 1021 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 1991

Goldston v. United States, 562 A.2d 96, 100 (D.C.1989). On appeal, this court makes an independent determination of whether there was reasonable suspicion, Brown v. … E.g., Jefferson v.

United States ex rel. Thomson v. Custis

35 App. D.C. 247 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 10, 1910

Rep. 231; Reetz v. Michigan, 188 U. S. 505 , 47 L. ed. 563, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 390; Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U. S. 11 , 49 L. ed. 643, 25 Sup. Ct. Rep. 358, 3 A. & E. Ann. Cas. 765; New York ex rel. Lieberman v. … Reetz v. Michigan, and Dent v. West Virginia, supra.

Matter of Austern

524 A.2d 680 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 1987

497 A.2d 1062 (D.C. 1985) (holding that respondent’s submission of false information in resume sent to prospective employer violated DR1-102(A)(4) and warranted public censure); Attorney Grievance Commission of Maryland v. … The Board therefore assumed, as we do, that the Hearing Committee intended to recommend a reprimand by the Board. 9 .

In Re Hirschfeld

622 A.2d 688 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1993

See United States v. Hirschfeld, 964 F.2d 318 (4th Cir.1992), cert. denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1067 , 122 L.Ed.2d 371 (1993), rehearing denied, — U.S. -, 113 S.Ct. 1437 , 122 L.Ed.2d 803 (1993). … As for what should happen next, the Board proposes two alternatives. The Board could continue to follow the procedure it used in this case.

Coombs v. United States

399 A.2d 1313 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1979

Brown v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 269 , 414 F.2d 1165 (1969). … It was therefore error to give the missing witness instruction. 9 See Brown v. United States, supra, 134 U.S.App.D.C. at 271-72 , 414 F.2d at 1167-68 ; Wynn v.

Georgetown University Hospital v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

916 A.2d 149 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 25, 2007

Discussion In a workers’ compensation case, we review the decision of the Board, not that of the ALJ. Providence Hosp. v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 855 A.2d 1108, 1111 (D.C.2004). … Here the compensation order reflects enough confusion that we cannot say the Board’s decision to affirm was supported by substantial evidence. See Mayo v.