Case law

Hively v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

681 A.2d 1158 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1996

Therefore, we will defer to the decision of DOES regarding the construction of the terms of the Act unless it is clearly erroneous. D. … Based on these statutory principles, the petitioner argues that being disabled for the preceding year qualifies as “continuously” disabled.

Otis Elevator Co. v. Tuerr

616 A.2d 1254 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1992

This evidence was more than adequate to establish Mr. Moyni-han’s qualifications as an expert witness in the fields in which he qualified. … Some of the opinions of the expert were clearly admissible, and therefore there was no prejudice to appellant in this case. 4 . In 1977, Mrs.

Evans-Reid v. District of Columbia

930 A.2d 930 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 2007

Where expert testimony is necessary, “the expert must clearly articulate and reference a standard of care by which *936 the defendant’s actions can be measured.” Clark v. … We will assume, without deciding, that where a plaintiff establishes a prima facie case of assault and battery and the officer invokes the qualified privilege as an affirmative defense, the officer bears the burdens of production

United States v. Lima

424 A.2d 113 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 1980

establish certain requirements relative to identification.” … His conduct is not actionable for any deprivation under color of law of rights, privileges or immunities secured by the Constitution. See Warner v.

Critchell v. Critchell

746 A.2d 282 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2000

The protections afforded to spouses of plan participants are found in two ERISA provisions: 1) the qualified joint and qualified pre-retirement survivor annuity (survivor annuity); and 2) the qualified domestic relations … “ERISA provides explicit requirements for a spouse's waiver of rights to the 'qualified joint and survivor annuity’ and the 'qualified preretirement survivor annuity’ in a qualified plan.” Rahn, 914 P.2d at 465 .

Sheridan-Kalorama Neighborhood Council v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

411 A.2d 959 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 7, 1979

It is an established maxim of review that an agency’s interpretation of its administrative regulations is to be given great deference and to be upheld unless clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations. 5 See, … In support of this position, intervenors cite several sections of the regulations which supposedly “clearly establish” this interpretation.

Ahmed v. District of Columbia Hackers License Appeal Board

501 A.2d 415 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1985

Unfortunately, the Board’s decision fails to state how the facts, as found by the Board, establish a violation of section 350.7. … In Dankman, supra., this court rejected an agency’s interpretation of a clearly phrased regulation, holding that it “served to qualify the rule into oblivion” and was plainly erroneous. 443 A.2d at 514 .

Roberson v. District of Columbia Board of Higher Education

359 A.2d 28 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1976

Having reviewed the record, we conclude that the trial court’s findings that no adverse actions occurred and that no adverse action proceeding was necessary are supported by substantial evidence and are not clearly erroneous … Spencer, D.C.App., 330 A.2d 250 , 251 n. 1 (1974), and the individual Board members are statutorily immune from liability for money damages under D.C.Code 1973, § 31-1602 (c).

In re Nathaniel H.Speights

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2017

Agreeing with the Hearing Committee‟s determination that respondent‟s errors and omissions clearly and convincingly demonstrate his violation of D.C. … Grenier was qualified to give opinions on the standard of care for lawyers in personal injury cases, and then (3) neither objecting to Mr.

In re Nathaniel H.Speights

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2017

Agreeing with the Hearing Committee‟s determination that respondent‟s errors and omissions clearly and convincingly demonstrate his violation of D.C. … Grenier was qualified to give opinions on the standard of care for lawyers in personal injury cases, and then (3) neither objecting to Mr.

Reynard Eaglin v. District of Columbia

123 A.3d 953 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2015

The record establishes, and Mr. … Rather, our cases make plain that the misconstruction must contradict law of the other State that is clearly established and that has been brought to the court’s attention.”).

Brooking v. Lemon

96 A.2d 849 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 21, 1953

Under all the circumstances the question of malice was clearly one for the jury. 3. Appellant contends that he was entitled to an instructed verdict because probable cause was established as a matter of law. … Johnson, 25 App.D.C. 155 , where it was said, “The appellant relies upon the advice of counsel as establishing probable cause.

Smith v. Swick & Shapiro, P.C.

75 A.3d 898 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2013

,’ ‘substantially more qualified,’ or ‘significantly better qualified’ than the successful candidate.” … James, 315 F.Supp.2d 110 (D.D.C.2004), which used the term “clearly superior,” as an analytical term. Id. at 116 .

United Planning Organization v. District of Columbia Commission on Human Rights

530 A.2d 674 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1987

Briscoe were comparably qualified is not supported by substantial evidence. … Holloman was more qualified for the position.

Oparaugo v. Watts

884 A.2d 63 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2005

Rather, he appears to have claimed that the burden was on ap-pellees to establish the law of Nigeria. … Appellant’s amended complaint clearly alleges the nature of the false and defamatory statement, the date of Mrs.

Matthews v. District of Columbia

387 A.2d 731 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 31, 1978

State, supra, an action against correctional officials individually (the state had not waived sovereign immunity), the court held that there was no showing that ordinary negligence on the part of prison officials had permitted … Gaither, however, presents a situation that is clearly distinguishable from that in the present case.

In Re Durosko Marital Trust

862 A.2d 914 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 2, 2004

However, Article 8 actually relates to the Family Trust, while Article 9 provides for the establishment of the Marital Trust, which Durosko stated was intended to be "an irrevocable qualified terminal interest property trust … Durosko argues that Articles 3 and 9 are impossible to perform because they purport to establish an irrevocable qualified terminal interest property (QTIP) trust which requires a surviving spouse as beneficiary, not the settlor

American Machine Tool Distributors Ass'n v. National Permanent Federal Savings & Loan Ass'n

464 A.2d 907 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 1983

The evidence failed to establish that National Permanent’s employees had reason to know that AMTDA is a corporation. … So clearly you could not be rebutting their testimony, is that correct? [Tr. 1053-54] I said I have not ruled that Mr.

Carter v. United States

614 A.2d 913 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 1992

Location of the Observation Post In the District of Columbia it is well established that “the government has a qualified privilege to withhold the exact location of an observation post.” Thompson v. … Day had similarly failed to establish the requisite need to overcome the government’s qualified privilege.

Solid Rock Church, Disciples of Christ v. Friendship Public Charter School, Inc.

925 A.2d 554 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 17, 2007

The trial court concluded that Friendship had standing because its “interestfs] clearly are affected by the encroachment in the case....” … The District is immune from statutes of limitation in suits relating to a public function.