Case law

MATTER OF McBRIDE

578 A.2d 1102 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 1990

United States v. Kegler, 724 F.2d 190 (D.C.Cir.1984). A leading opinion in this jurisdiction is United States v. Raper, 676 F.2d 841 (D.C. Cir.1982). … E.g., Nye and Nissen v. United States, 336 U.S. 613, 619 , 69 S.Ct. 766, 769 , 93 L.Ed. 919 (1949); United States v. Staten, 581 F.2d 878, 887 (D.C.Cir.1978); United States v. Holder, 566 F.2d 617, 619 (8th Cir.1977).

1776 K ST. ASSOCIATES v. District of Columbia

446 A.2d 1114 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1982

See Schmidt v. District of Columbia, Tax Docket 2628 (January 2, 1979). … See District of Columbia v.

DeKine v. District of Columbia

422 A.2d 981 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 14, 1980

Prosser, supra §§ 129-30; 4 Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 766-66C (1979); see Carr v. Brown, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 79, 84 (1978) ("interference with prospective advantage"); Alfred A. Altimont, Inc. v. … See generally Carr v. Brown, D.C. App., 395 A.2d 79, 82-85 (1978); Alfred A. Altimont, Inc. v. Chatelain, Samperton & Nolan, D.C.App., 374 A.2d 284, 288-90 (1977); W. Prosser, supra §§ 129-30. [14] Cf. S.

In Re Jackson

650 A.2d 675 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 29, 1994

A copy of the Board’s report and recommendation, in slightly edited form, is appended to this opinion. Before this court neither Mr. Jackson nor Bar Counsel has challenged the Board’s recommendation. … Moreover, the full record of the disciplinary hearing, including Bar Counsel’s exhibits, and the opinion of Judge Jackson in Wilkins v. Jackson, Civil Action No. 91-2911 (D.D.C.

In Re Demos

875 A.2d 636 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 26, 2005

the Board’s stated intention to seek reciprocal discipline and by failing to participate in the proceedings before the Board. … V It is therefore ORDERED that respondent is hereby disbarred from the practice of law in the District of Columbia, effective immediately.

In Re Kennedy

542 A.2d 1225 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 1988

The Board concluded that the more serious sanction was required in order to be consistent with recent Board recommendations for similar conduct. … As of the date the briefs were filed in the court, this dispute was pending resolution in the Circuit Court for Prince George's County, Maryland, Kennedy v. Van S. Powers and Legal Associates, CAL 85-11835.

In Re Pels

653 A.2d 388 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 30, 1995

Id. at 702 (quoting Clark v. State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161, 168 , 246 P.2d 1, 5 (1952)). … See Separate Opinion of Board member Don-nenfeld, at 1. 3 .

T.K., Inc. v. National Community Reinvestment Coalition, Inc.

76 A.3d 895 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 2013

v. … NCRC’s reliance on Accurate and Brown is misplaced.

Wells v. Golden

785 A.2d 641 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2001

See Hall v. … The Board may rely on the entire record in assessing the facts of the case, cf. Wright v.

In Re Bowser

771 A.2d 1002 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2001

iv) the attorney’s understanding of the continuing obligation to keep and maintain records (including copies of all pertinent documents) showing the steps taken by such attorney to comply with Section 14 of Rule XI; and (v) … hearing and report to the Board.

Family Construction v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer and Regulatory Affairs

484 A.2d 250 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1984

See, e.g., Tower v. … Brown v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, 413 A.2d 1276, 1280 (D.C.1980) (citations omitted).

In Re Hessler

549 A.2d 700 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 1988

Clark v. State Bar, 39 Cal.2d 161, 168 , 246 P.2d 1, 5 (1952) (quoting Peck v. State Bar, 217 Cal. 47, 51 , 17 P.2d 112, 114 (1932)). … The Board agrees. A.

Harrison v. United States

435 A.2d 734 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1981

The victim, not realizing that he had been robbed, reported to the officer that he had just lost a brown manila envelope containing $6,000 in cash. … Ohio v.

Boone v. Taylor

256 A.2d 411 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1969

Miss Boone has filed in this court a petition to review the 1968 school board election, challenging the election of the four individual respondents who were certified by the Board of Elections as elected to the Board of Education … Mitchell v. Hahn, et al., Civil Action No. 2448-68 (October 31, 1968).

Simpson v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights

597 A.2d 392 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 1, 1991

An aggrieved individual may elect to file a complaint with OHR or in any court of competent jurisdiction, see Brown v. … Brown, supra, 425 A.2d at 1311 .

In Re Ukwu

926 A.2d 1106 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 2007

Andrews v. City of Philadelphia, 895 F.2d 1469, 1484 (3d Cir.1990). … We relied, in that connection, on United States v.

In re F.T.J.

578 A.2d 1161 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 1990

In essence that case merely applied a proposition already set forth in Brown v. … See, in addition to Brown and Waterstaat, supra, Tucker v.

Felicity's, Inc. v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs

817 A.2d 825 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2003

See Monaco v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 461 A.2d 1049, 1051-62 (D.C.1983) (failure to provide formal notice required under agency rules is excused where party had timely actual notice); Shiflett v. … Woolworth v. District of Columbia Bd. of Appeals & Review, 579 A.2d 713, 716-17 (D.C.1990).

Bateman v. Crim

34 A.2d 257 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1943

See Brown v. Wood, 201 N.C. 309 , 160 S.E. 281 . … The following cases illustrate the attitude of various courts on this question: Hutchinson v. Knowles, 108 Vt. 195 , 184 A. 705 ; Brown v. Wood, 201 N.C. 309 , 160 S.E. 281 ; Epperson v.

Network Technical Services, Inc. v. D.C. Data Co.

464 A.2d 133 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 1983

PER CURIAM: The District of Columbia Lottery and Charitable Control Board (“Board”) decided to award the contract for an on-line lottery system to appellants 1 (“LTE”). … See Sampson v. Murray, 415 U.S. 61, 87 , 94 S.Ct. 937, 951 , 39 L.Ed.2d 166 (1974); National Mediation Board v. Airline Pilots Assoc., Internat'l, 116 U.S.App.D.C. 300 , 323 F.2d 305 (1963); Macfarland v.