Case law

In Re Huber

708 A.2d 259 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 1998

See, e.g., Bingham v. Goldberg, Marchesano, Kohlman, Inc., 637 A.2d 81 , 95 n. 34 (D.C.1994). … See In re Gorfkle, 444 A.2d 934, 939-40 (D.C.1982); see also Zapata v. Zapata, 499 A.2d 905, 908 (D.C. 1985). 6 .

Cohen v. Basiliko

106 A.2d 142 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1954

Burrows Motor Co. v. Davis, D.C.Mun.App., 76 A.2d 163 ; Gunn v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 59 A.2d 518 ; Trans-Lux Radio City Corp. v. Service Parking Corp., D.C.Mun.App., 54 A.2d 144 . See also Sheets v. … Gunn v. Brown, supra, 59 A.2d at page 519 .

In re Juliano

912 A.2d 553 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 2006

See United States v. Juliano, Case No. 02-CR-310-3; judgment and sentencing order dated October 10, 2006. … Respondent has not filed any exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation. We therefore accept the Board’s findings and adopt its recommendation. See D.C. Bar R.

Matter of Miller

553 A.2d 201 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1989

MACK, Associate Judge: On this appeal the basic issue is whether a sanction of one year’s suspension recommended by the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) for a violation by respondent of Disciplinary Rule 1-102 … The Board avoids this question by concluding that even if the lower standard is applicable, respondent has failed to meet this burden. Other courts have adopted the higher standard. See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v.

In Re Pleshaw

2 A.3d 169 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 2010

On review, the Board affirmed all of the hearing committee’s findings of disciplinary violations, with the exception of its finding of negligent misappropriation of conservator funds. 4 The Board disagreed with the hearing … See M.A.P. v. Ryan, 285 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C. 1971) ("[N]o division of this court will *175 overrule a prior decision of this court[;] ... such result can only be accomplished by this court en banc."). 25 .

Angarano v. United States

329 A.2d 453 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 1974

Action, 217 So.2d 323 (Fla.1969) (Should the Board of Governors on behalf of the Bar advocate electoral support for revised Constitution); Sams v. Olah, supra (Whether the State Bar Act was constitutional); Button v. … Accord, United States v. Brown, 155 U.S. App.D.C. 177, 179, 476 F.2d 933, 935 (1973); United States v. Thompson, 154 U.S.App.D.C. 347, 348 , 475 F.2d 931, 932 (1973). See also Marshall v.

Matter of Burton

472 A.2d 831 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 11, 1984

In Simmons v. … In Johnstone v.

Grillo v. National Bank of Washington

540 A.2d 743 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1988

The Board of Directors *746 approved this plan and did not later disavow the general desirability of safety glass. … Fed.R.Evid. 407 (emphasis supplied); see also Boeing Airplane Co. v. Brown, 291 F.2d 310 (9th Cir.1961).

In Re Rogers

902 A.2d 103 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2006

See Chambers v. NASCO, Inc., 501 U.S. 32, 50 , 111 S.Ct. 2123 , 115 L.Ed.2d 27 (1991). … Bar Board of *105 Governors in 1985.

Galberth v. United States

590 A.2d 990 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1991

Brown v. Texas, supra, 443 U.S. at 50-51 , 99 S.Ct. at 2640 ; see also Sitz, supra, 110 S.Ct. at 2485 (applying the Brown v. Texas balancing test to sobriety checkpoints). Applying the Brown v. … We conclude that under either reading of Judge Dixon’s finding, the roadblock cannot survive the Brown v.

In Re Hewett

11 A.3d 279 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 13, 2011

Williams v. United *289 States, 441 A.2d 255, 260 (D.C.1982). … The Board found that "it was not uncommon for conservators to be late” in filing their annual accounts. 3 . The Board’s majority report, authored by Irvin B. Nathan, was joined by five other Board members.

Mozick v. Mozick

245 A.2d 643 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 1968

The application of the rule of res judicata in cases like this was well-stated by the court in Brown v. Brown, 74 U.S.App. … But see Novak v. Novak, D.C.App., 212 A.2d 341 (1965); Unger v. Unger, D.C.Mun.App., 174 A. 2d 84 (1961) ; Dowdy v. Hawfield, 88 U.S.App.D.C. 241 , 189 F.2d 637 (1951).

In Re O'Toole

877 A.2d 151 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 2005

Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel has filed an exception to the Board’s recommendation. Therefore, we adopt the recommendation of the Board. See D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9(g). … See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. O’Toole, 379 Md. 595, 598-600 , 843 A.2d 50, 52-53 (2004).

In Re Bernstein

707 A.2d 371 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 1998

STEADMAN, Associate Judge: The Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) found that respondent Kenneth H. … Committee on Legal Ethics v. Hazlett, 179 W.Va. 303 , 367 S.E.2d 772 (1988) (under West Virginia version of Rule 1.16(d), lawyer cannot condition the return of a client's file on the execution of a general release). 8 .

Jones v. United States

391 A.2d 1188 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 1978

When the man on the passenger side got out, the officer saw a greenish weed on the right front seat in a brown transparent wrapper, and numerous small brown envelopes on the rear seat. … In Terry v.

In re Kroll

43 A.2d 706 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 25, 1945

Huff v. O’Bryant, 74 App.D.C. 19 , 121 *708 F.2d 890 ; U.S.C.A. Title 5, § 133t, Plan No. II, Part 1, Sec. 3; Code 1940, § 32-810. Code 1940, § 11 — 906. … Mattingly v. Com., 171 Ky. 222 , 188 S.W. 370, 371 . See also State ex rel. Berry v. Superior Court, 139 Wash. 1 , 245 P. 409 , 45 A.L.R. 1530 and annotation; 31 Am.Jur., Juvenile Courts and Offenders, Sec. 22.

In Re Hardwick

859 A.2d 1063 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2004

Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. … XI, § 11(d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”).

American Federation of Government Employees v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority

942 A.2d 1108 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2007

District of Columbia v. … Had AFGE merely appealed to the Board the refusal of the arbitrator to award attorneys fees, the Superior Court could thereafter have reviewed the Board's ruling. D.C.Code § 1-617.13(c) (2001); see also Gibson v.

In Re Pierson

690 A.2d 941 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1997

TERRY, Associate Judge: The Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) has recommended that respondent be disbarred. … Pierson appeared in the Superior Court on behalf of the defendant-tenant in Elenar Associates Limited Partnership v. Urban Shelters & Health Care Systems, Inc.

In Re Stiller

725 A.2d 533 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1999

The Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”), in Bar Docket No. 430-88, concluded that Mr. … In January 1994 the Supreme Court issued its decision in Ratzlaf v.