Case law

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.

In Re Glass

805 A.2d 236 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 2002

Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Glass, 365 Md. 319 , 778 A.2d 1107 (2001). … XI, § 11(d), and referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility “Board”. The Board has recommended imposition of identical reciprocal discipline.

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

In Re Mitrano

952 A.2d 901 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2008

See, e.g., Richardson v. United States, 131 U.S.App. … Auto Lube, Inc. v. Jiffy Lube International, Inc., 842 F.2d 946, 949 (7th Cir.1988) (citing with approval Calloway v.

Bostic v. Henkels and McCoy, Inc.

748 A.2d 421 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 2000

See also Chance v. … See also Gerber v.

In re Paul

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 20, 2023

.”); Krouse v. … See Imbler v.

District of Columbia v. Washington Ex Rel. Washington

332 A.2d 347 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 1975

KLM v. Tuller, 110 U.S.App.D.C. 282, 291 , 292 F.2d 775 , 784, cert. denied, 368 U.S. 921 , 82 S.Ct. 243 , 7 L.Ed.2d 136 (1961). See also Martin v. Savage Truck Line, 121 F.Supp. 417 (D.D.C.1954). … See M.A.P. v. Ryan, D.C.App., 285 A.2d 310 (1971).

In re Kenwood

934 A.2d 928 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 1, 2007

No exceptions to *929 the Board’s Report and Recommendation have been filed. … Florida Bar v. Kenwood, No. SC03-1204.

In Re Cloud

939 A.2d 653 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 2007

Cloud argues should have been considered by the Board, the evidence was more than sufficient to support its findings and, in light of such cases as Anderson and Utley , its recommendation. V. … See Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. Reid, 666 A.2d 41, 42-44 (D.C.1995). 3 . Ms. Dean was offered the $24,000 settlement as a result of negotiations by her previous attorney, Kathleen Dolan.

Fraser v. Gottfried

636 A.2d 430 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 1994

See, e.g., Conley v. Gibson, 355 U.S. 41, 45-46 , 78 S.Ct. 99, 101-102 , 2 L.Ed.2d 80 (1957); McBryde v. Amoco Oil Co., 404 A.2d 200, 202 (D.C.1979). … D.C.Code § 41-105(a) (1990); see also Beckman v.

In re Askew

96 A.3d 52 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

Gregory v. United States, 393 A.2d 132, 141 (D.C.1978) (footnote omitted). … United States v. Bailey, 581 F.2d 984, 989 (D.C.Cir.1978) (footnotes omitted); see also CJA Plan, § 111(A) (the court seeks to ensure that indigent defendants are offered counsel of the “highest qualifications”).

Barber v. D.C. Commission on Selection and Tenure of Administrative Law Judges

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 2021

Heffernan, 192 A.2d 577, 581–83 (N.J. 1963) (applying de facto officer doctrine to holdover appointees of a planning board); Baker v. State, 833 A.2d 1070 (Md. Ct. … (citing Brown v. Lunt, 37 Me. 423, 432 (Me. 1854) (justice of the peace “holding over the time limited by his commission” was a de facto officer)); Ridout v.

Young v. United States

694 A.2d 891 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 22, 1997

See also Williams-Davis, supra, 319 U.S.App.D.C. at 280 , 90 F.3d at 503 (requiring defendant to prove actual bias); United States v. Brown, 307 U.S.App.D.C. 60, 63 , 26 F.3d 1124, 1127 (1994) (same); United States v. … Additionally, in Smith v.

Norris v. United States

927 A.2d 1034 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2007

Board of Parole, is there any indication of the existence of a D.C. Board of Parole or U.S. Parole Commission file concerning [Norris].” … See Taylor v.

Morrison v. United States

417 A.2d 409 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1980

But see also in this connection, Brown v. … See also Bussie v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 81 A.2d 247 (1951); compare Brown v. United States, D.C. App., 379 A.2d 708 , 710 n.3 (1977).

In re Hoover-Hankerson

953 A.2d 1025 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2008

Bar Counsel takes no exception to the Board’s report and recommendation, and respondent has withdrawn her previously filed exceptions. We accept the Board’s findings and adopt its recommendation. See D.C. Bar R. … United States v. Hoover-Hankerson, 511 F.3d 164 (D.C.Cir.2007).

Johnson v. Danneman

547 A.2d 981 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 1988

See generally District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics v. … District of Columbia, 520 A.2d 671 (D.C.1986); District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics v. *984 Jones, 481 A.2d 456 (D.C.1984); Convention Center Referendum Committee v.

Gullo v. Hirst

291 A.2d 504 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 1972

[Gullo v. Brown, supra 483 P. 2d at 296 .] … Gullo v. Brown, 82 N.M. 412 , 483 P.2d 293, 295 (1971). This court and the Fourth Circuit took a less charitable view of appellant’s conduct. . This divorce occurred in 1951.

In Re Zeiger

692 A.2d 1351 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1997

Bar Counsel supports the Board’s report and recommendation. … Molovinsky v. Monterey Cooperative, Inc., 689 A.2d 531 n. 7 (D.C.1996) (quoting Pioneer Inv. Servs. Co. v. Brunswick Assocs. Ltd. Partnership, 507 U.S. 380, 396 , 113 S.Ct. 1489, 1499 , 123 L.Ed.2d 74 (1993)).

Goudreau v. Standard Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

511 A.2d 386 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 18, 1986

Code § 28-3301 (b)(4) creates “an obstacle to the accomplishment and execution of the full purposes and objectives” of Bank Board regulations pertaining to escrow accounts. Hines v. … Nevertheless, we note that several courts have found preemption because HOLA and the Bank Board’s regulations occupy either the entire field of regulation or some particular aspect of it. See, e.g., Meyers v.