Case law

In Re Blades

766 A.2d 560 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2001

See Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Blades, 352 Md. 1 , 720 A.2d 583 (1998). … Neither Bar Counsel nor respondent object to the Board’s report and recommendation.

Thomas v. United States

731 A.2d 415 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1999

Leung, 929 F.2d 1204, 1209 (7th Cir.), cert. denied, 502 U.S. 906 , 112 S.Ct. 297 , 116 L.Ed.2d 241 (1991); United States v. Brown, 101 F.3d 1272, 1274 (8th Cir.1996); United States v. … When police asked Brown his name following his arrest on a narcotics charge, Brown falsely claimed that he was Marius Singleton.

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.

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.

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.

David D. Travers v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 2015

State Bar v. Attorney-Respondent, 367 So. 2d 179, 185 (Miss. 1979); In re Baun, 232 N.W.2d 621, 624-25 (Mich. 1975); cf. Littlejohn v. … United States v.

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.

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 .

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.

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 .

In Re Hopmayer

602 A.2d 655 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1992

TERRY, Associate Judge: In January 1990 this court suspended respondent Hopmayer from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, pending a formal proceeding before the Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board … State v. Kelly, 204 N.J.Super. 283, 287 , 498 A.2d 784, 787 (1985). That constitutes intentional dishonesty for personal gain, which inherently involves moral turpitude.

Adams v. Braxton

656 A.2d 729 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1995

In Mack v. … In Campbell v.

Brier v. Orenberg

90 A.2d 832 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 1952

Creighton v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 77 A.2d 559 ; Restatement, Contracts, § 250 (1932). When the settlement date arrived and1 the assignment had not been obtained buyer was clearly within his rights in refusing to settle. … Creighton v. Brown, supra; Restatement, Contracts §§ 395, 250(a), 257 (1932); 3 Williston, Contracts, § 633 et seq., § 1970 (Revised ed. 1936). Reversed. 1 .

Dano Resource Recovery, Inc. v. District of Columbia

566 A.2d 483 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1989

Contract Appeals Board in September 1983. … See Cox v. Jenkins, 878 F.2d 414, 419-20 (D.C.Cir.1989); C Street Tenants Association, supra, 552 A.2d at 526 ; cf. Walker v.

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.

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.

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.

Matter of Lieber

442 A.2d 153 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1982

The Board recommends that Lieber be suspended for a period of six months. … See Powell v. Alabama, 287 U.S. 45, 73 , 53 S.Ct. 55, 65 , 77 L.Ed. 158 (1932); 7A C.J.S. Attorney and Client § 137 (1980).

In Re Confidential (J.E.S.)

670 A.2d 1343 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1996

Inst. of Architects v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 594 A.2d 83, 87 (D.C.1991)). … Specifically, he cites: Phillips v. Joyce, 169 Ill.App.3d 520 , 120 Ill.Dec. 22, 28 , 523 N.E.2d 933, 939 (1988); In re Ziemann, 214 Ill.App.3d 988 , 158 Ill.Dec. 654 , 574 N.E.2d 767 (1991); and Holstein v.