Case law

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).

District of Columbia v. White

435 A.2d 1055 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 1981

See Fleming v. Mohawk Wrecking & Lumber Co., 331 U.S. 111, 121 , 67 S.Ct. 1129, 1134 , 91 L.Ed. 1375 (1947). 6 Congress gave the Board the pow *1057 er to adopt rules and regulations. … Moreover, the rules and regulations of the Board have full force and effect unless they are in conflict with express statutory prohibitions. United States ex rel. Denney 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.

Powell v. United States

684 A.2d 373 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1996

Brown also testified that appellant suggested that she leave town rather than testify. Brown admitted that about ten minutes before the shooting, she had smoked crack cocaine with Anderson. … See, e.g., Cosby v.

Roberts v. Veterans Cooperative Housing Ass'n

88 A.2d 324 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1952

Corbin, Contracts, § 9. .Bovello v. Falvey Granite Co., Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 71 A.2d 536 . See also Zlotnick v. Crisp, 87 U.S.App.D.C. 339, 340 , 185 F.2d 502, 503 , footnote 2. . … In re Irwin, 162 Or. 221 , 91 P.2d 518 ; Gabrielson v. Gorin, 92 Wash. 408 , 159 P. 387 ; Baldie v. Bank of America Nat. Trust & Savings Ass’n, 97 Cal.App.2d 70 , 217 P.2d 111 .

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.

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department v. Pinkard

801 A.2d 86 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 2002

See Gunty v. Department of Employment Services, 524 A.2d 1192, 1197 (D.C.1987); Stokes v. District of Columbia, 502 A.2d 1006, 1010 (D.C.1985); Dell v. … See Hessey v. Burden, 615 A.2d 562 , 581 n. 28 (D.C.1992).

In re Boykins

999 A.2d 166 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 29, 2010

See Menard, Inc. v. … .”); Gulf States *176 Utilities Co. v. FERC, 922 F.2d 873, 876 (D.C.Cir.1991) ("To be sure, multifactor tests are subject to manipulation.

Lyons v. United States

622 A.2d 34 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 1993

We therefore conclude that the trial court’s decision to admit Jones’s declaration through Officer Brown’s testimony was clearly erroneous. *48 V. … Coates v.

District of Columbia v. Cassidy

465 A.2d 395 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 18, 1983

See Benton v. School Board of Broward County, 386 So.2d 831, 834 (Fla.App.1980); Lauricella v. Board of Education, 52 A.D.2d 710 , 381 N.Y.S.2d 566 (1976); Annot., 36 A.L.R.3d 330 (1971). … School Board of Broward County, supra, 386 So.2d at 835 ; Cianci v. Board of Education, 18 A.D.2d 930 , 238 N.Y.S.2d 547 (1963); Rodrigues v.

In Re Shaw

775 A.2d 1123 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2001

See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. … He argues that under Maryland law Kaiser in fact had no valid claim to the settlement funds, citing Riemer v. Columbia Med., 358 Md. 222 , 747 A.2d 677 (2000).

In Re Squillacote

790 A.2d 514 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2002

Indictment, United States v. Clark, Crim. No. 97-948-M (E.D.Va.). … In United States v.

In re Vohra

68 A.3d 766 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 27, 2013

In re Boykins, 999 A.2d 166, 174 (D.C.2010) (finding that the “respondent violated Rule[ ] ... 8.4(d) by misleading Bar Counsel during its investigation.”). *784 V. … V. CONCLUSION The Board recommends that the Court find Respondent to have violated Rules 1.1(a) and (b); 1.3(a), (b)(1), (b)(2), and (c); 1.4(a) and (b); 3.3(a)(1); 8.1(a); and 8.4(b), (c), and (d).

Womack v. United States

673 A.2d 603 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 14, 1996

Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1020 (D.C.1991); Lawrence v. United States, 566 A.2d 57, 60 (D.C.1989). We must defer to the trial judge’s findings of eviden-tiary fact. Lawrence, supra, 566 A.2d at 60 . … See Brown, supra, 590 A.2d at 1020 . B. Reasonableness, Proportionality, and the Fourth Amendment.

Fairman v. District of Columbia

934 A.2d 438 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 25, 2007

Corp. v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm’n, 343 U.S.App. … Lopata, supra, 735 A.2d at 937 (quoting Nghiem v.

District of Columbia v. Casino Associates, Ltd.

684 A.2d 322 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1996

See also Lake Worth Towers, Inc. v. … See also The Washington Post Co. v.

In Re Miller

883 A.2d 105 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2005

See Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Miller, Misc. Docket AG No. 13 (September Term 2004). … Bar Counsel filed a certified copy of the *106 Maryland reprimand order with this court, and we referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) to either recommend whether identical, greater or lesser

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 .

Miller v. District of Columbia

587 A.2d 213 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1991

In Golden State Transit Corp. v. … This is not to say that the determination of issues by the Board may not have some effect under doctrines of res judicata and collateral estoppel. See University of Tennessee v.

J.O. v. O.E.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 2014

Hosp. v. … This court‘s ―standard of review mirrors that which the Board is bound to apply‖ when the Board reviews an ALJ‘s compensation order. Id. at 1276 (citing Marriott Int’l v.