Case law

Melvin E. Jackson v. United States

109 A.3d 1105 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2015

In the radio call the dispatcher described the man as a black male with a brown shirt. … Florida v. J.L., 529 U.S. 266, 272 (2000).

Hill v. United States

664 A.2d 347 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1995

Brown said that the incident had occurred at the comer of Fourteenth Street and Columbia Road. The officers then escorted Brown out of the building without incident. … In Minnesota v.

Manago v. District of Columbia

934 A.2d 925 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2007

See Ibrahim v. University of the District of Columbia, 742 A.2d 879 , 881 n. 3 (D.C.1999) (“UDC proper [as distinguished from the Board of Trustees] ... is not sui juris.”). Super. Ct. Civ. … Second, the only proper defendant for this claim would be the Board of Trustees of the university, see D.C.Code § 38-1202.01(a), and, as we have seen, the Board was not properly served with the complaint.

Cosgrove v. United States

411 A.2d 57 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 1980

For example: Cardaropoli v. … App.D.C. 325, 97 F.2d 182 (1938) (District of Columbia prisoners may be incarcerated in federal institutions and are subject to federal parole board jurisdiction; and Currey-Bey v.

McEachin v. United States

432 A.2d 1212 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1981

Holmes, 414 F.Supp. 831, 837 (D.Md.1976); Board of Supervisors of Fairfax County, Va. v. … Hanson followed appellant outside the store and noticed that the boxes inside appellant’s shopping cart had neither been placed in the store’s brown paper bags nor had the security tape, customarily placed on larger items

National Trust for Historic Preservation in the United States v. District of Columbia

498 A.2d 574 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 8, 1985

Code § 47-3303 ; see also D.C.Code § 47-839; District of Columbia v. … In District of Columbia v.

MEDSTAR HEALTH, INC. v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH, STATE HEALTH PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT AGENCY

146 A.3d 360 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2016

In their initial briefs, MedStar and DHP addressed21 whether SHPDA’s decision to deny a certificate of need was 19 For this proposition, the OAH ALJ cited Brown v. … Bd., 55 A.3d 894, 899 (D.C. 2012) (acknowledging special deference owed to the Public Charter School Board in light of its expertise in education policy); cf. MorphoTrust USA, Inc. v.

In Re Krowen

573 A.2d 786 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1990

Pursuant to this statute the District of Columbia Court of Appeals Board on Professional Responsibility (Board) recommends disbarment of Jer-ril J. … United States v.

Firemen's Insurance Co. of Washington v. Belts

455 A.2d 908 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 1983

Day v. United Securities Corp., 272 A.2d 448 (D.C.App.1970). In Castro v. … Dark Brown, Hair Brown.” Several amended affidavits were thereafter filed. 3 . Appellee claimed that he was unaware of the suit until he received notice of the oral examination sometime in June 1981.

In Re Pelkey

962 A.2d 268 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2008

REID, Associate Judge: The Board on Professional Responsibility (“the Board”) has recommended that respondent Bruce A. … In re Gil, 656 A.2d 303, 305 (D.C.1995) (quoting Fredericks v. United States, 306 A.2d 268, 270 (D.C.1973)). 20 . In re Gil, supra note 19, 656 A.2d at 306 (quoting In re Kennedy, 542 A.2d 1225, 1228 (D.C.1988)). 21 .

Darab v. United States

623 A.2d 127 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 9, 1993

In Riley v. … The evidence showed that the Board of Governors vested Dr.

In re Sherlock v. Grigsby

167 A.3d 551 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2017

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA COURT OF APPEALS No. 16-BG-1069 IN RE SHERLOCK V. GRIGSBY, Respondent. … We therefore accept the Board’s recommendation. D.C. Bar R. XI, § 9 (h)(2). Accordingly, it is ORDERED that respondent Sherlock V.

In Re Krouner

920 A.2d 1039 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2007

We review the Board’s recommendation in accordance with D.C. Bar R. … If The Board decides that it does, that is the end of the inquiry; The Board must recommend disbarment. (Emphasis in original). 6 .Respondent’s reliance on United States v.

Brooks v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

453 A.2d 812 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1982

See Howell v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 51 Pa.Commw. 26, 413 A.2d 782 (1980); Bigley v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 38 Pa.Commw. 569, 393 A.2d 1312 (1978). … No medical evidence was presented, Howell v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra, and no request for transfer was made, Bigley v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, supra.

In re Estate of Brown

930 A.2d 249 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 2007

Brown’s attorney moved into evidence the listing agreement for the property. After Mr. Brown’s attorney called as a witness the daughter-in-law of the deceased, Ms. Smith inquired as to the nature of her testimony. … (citing Richardson v. Green, 528 A.2d 429, 436 (D.C.1987)).

In re Dana W. Johnson

103 A.3d 194 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 13, 2014

XI, § 16 (c). 1 Attorney Grievance Comm'n of Maryland v. … The Board then directed Mr.

Techniarts Video, Inc. v. 1631 Kalorama Associates

572 A.2d 1051 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1990

Brown, 395 A.2d 50, 52 (D.C.1978); Garces v. Bradley, 299 A.2d 142, 144 (D.C.1973). … Pollock v. Brown, supra, 395 A.2d at 52 ; see also Peek v.

In Re Lickstein

898 A.2d 897 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 4, 2006

Since we find that the record amply supports the Board’s findings, we accept those findings and adopt the Board’s recommended sanction. … In re Forde v. Nat’l Home Buyer Realty, Inc., No. 01-12296-SSM (Chapter 7) (Bankr.E.D.Va.2004). 2 . On September 24, 2004, the Virginia State Bar Disciplinary Board imposed reciprocal discipline.

East Capitol View Community Development Corp. v. Robinson

941 A.2d 1036 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2008

Psychiatric Inst. of Wash. v. Allen, 509 A.2d 619, 625 (D.C.1986) (citations omitted). Further, a jury instruction is “not warranted without some evidence to support it.” Brown v. … See Thoma v.

Miller v. Miller

180 A.2d 888 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 11, 1962

Melvin v. … Brown v. Brown, 74 App.D.C. 309, 311 , 122 F.2d 219, 221 . 3 . See also Gill v.