Case law

Craig v. United States

490 A.2d 1173 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 1985

Hagner v. United States, 285 U.S. 427, 431 , 52 S.Ct. 417, 419 , 76 L.Ed.2d 861 (1932); Hackney v. … In United States v.

In Re Lenoir

585 A.2d 771 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 1991

Bar Counsel points out that a three year statute of limitations would have applied to Holley v. … The Board, however, recommends that these two charges be dismissed due to a lack of clear and convincing proof. We agree with the Board’s recommendation as to these two charges.

Butler v. United States

388 A.2d 883 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1978

Brown v. United States, D.C.App., 379 A.2d 708 (1977). … We reiterate our holding in Brown v. United States, supra, that the ten-day rule is jurisdictional, and that Fallen permits departure under only the most compelling of circumstances.

Ingersoll v. Ingersoll

950 A.2d 672 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2008

The will must be “the direct result of force or coercion,.... ” Estate of Brown v. Brown, 413 A.2d 1310, 1313 (D.C.1980). … See Pope v.

Holston v. United States

633 A.2d 378 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1993

Peay v. United States, 597 A.2d 1318, 1319-20 (D.C.1991) (en banc); Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1013 (D.C.1991). … Lawrence v. United States, 566 A.2d 57, 60 (D.C.1989); see also Brown, supra, 590 A.2d at 1020 . The trial court’s finding on the issue is adequately supported; therefore, it must be accorded deference.

Goodman v. Sears Roebuck Co.

129 A.2d 405 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 20, 1957

the walkway and boards in going from its store to its parking lot. … See Harrison v. Davis Construction Co., 42 App.D.C. 255 .

Davidson v. Office of Employee Appeals

886 A.2d 70 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 27, 2005

Mills v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Empl. Servs., 838 A.2d 325, 328 (D.C.2003) (quoting Black v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 801 A.2d 983, 985 (D.C.2002)). … Ferreira v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 667 A.2d 310, 312 (D.C.1995).

Saunders v. First National Realty Corporation

245 A.2d 836 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 1968

Where legal issues raised on appeal would be res judicata between the parties in a subsequent proceeding, an appeal should not be dismissed even though the main controversy has become moot. 1 In Brown v. … The first, made at oral argument, is that under our ruling in Brown v.

In re Massey

725 A.2d 1014 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 1999

Massey did not participate in the proceedings before the Board, and neither he nor Bar Counsel has filed in this court any exceptions to the Board’s report and recommendation. … North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). . The Board noted that resignation and disbarment are "functionally equivalent.” .

Colton v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

484 A.2d 550 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1984

District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, supra. We note also that the employer bears the burden of proof on the issue of misconduct. Keep v. … Jones v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board, 395 A.2d 392, 395 (D.C.1978); accord, Jadallah v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, supra, 476 A.2d at 675 ; Keep v.

In Re Evans

902 A.2d 56 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 27, 2006

V. Conclusion The Board sustains the Committee’s finding that Respondent violated Rules 1.1(a), 1.1(b), 1.7(b)(4) and 8.4(d). … Although it appears that Maurice’s interest in his mother’s estate should not have been distributed to his heirs without a probate proceeding, see Douglas v.

In Re Balsamo

780 A.2d 255 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 2001

See, e.g., United States v. Mangieri, 224 U.S.App. … See id. at 430 (citing Cleveland Bd. of Educ. v. Loudermill, 470 U.S. 532, 546 , 105 S.Ct. 1487 , 84 L.Ed.2d 494 (1985)).

Carpenter v. DC TRAFFIC ADJUD. APP. BD.

530 A.2d 680 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 19, 1987

See Pillis v. … See Jones v. District of Columbia Hackers' License Appeal Board, 455 A.2d 896, 897 (D.C.1983) (substantial evidence test). Therefore some period of suspension was warranted.

Clark v. Scott

329 A.2d 442 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 1974

Friedman v. United States, 310 F.2d 381, 385 , 159 Ct.Cl. 1 (1962); Foust v. Carney, 205 Tenn. 604 , 329 S.W.2d 826 (1959); West v. Board of Education of Prince George’s County, 165 F.Supp. 382 (Md.1958); O’Brien v. … Appellant’s reliance upon Thompson v. Board of Education of District of Columbia, 112 U.S.App.D.C. 89 , 299 F.2d 920 (1962), to counter the defense of laches is unpersuasive.

On Petition to Amend Rule 1 of the Rules Governing the Bar

431 A.2d 521 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 5, 1981

Judge KELLY concurs in this opinion except for Part V thereof. . There are three categories of membership in our unified (or mandatory) bar: active, inactive, and judicial. The total membership is approximately 34,000. … See, e. g., Abood v. Detroit Board of Education, 431 U.S. 209 , 97 S.Ct. 1782 , 52 L.Ed.2d 261 (1977). The implementation of Referendum No. 2, however, will moot this problem. .

Kenhan v. United States

263 A.2d 253 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 1970

Accord, Waterstaat v. United States, D.C.App., 252 A.2d 507 (1969). Affirmed. 1 . … See Brown v. United States, 58 App.D.C. 311 , 30 F.2d 474 (1929).

District of Columbia v. Suydam

591 A.2d 856 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 1991

The judge agreed and granted the motion, citing Schwartz v. Brown, 64 A.2d 298 (D.C.1949), and Belanger v. … Schwartz v. Brown, 64 A.2d at 299 ; Burger v. Western Sand & Gravel Co., 237 S.W.2d 725, 729 (Tex.Civ.App.1950).

In Re Owusu

886 A.2d 536 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2005

*538 FARRELL, Associate Judge: The Board on Professional Responsibility (the Board), having found that respondent Jacob Q. … In a recent case, Sitcov v. District of Columbia Bar, No. 05-BG-258, 885 A.2d 289 , 2005 D.C.App. Lexis 529 (D.C. October 20, 2005), we similarly held that suspension of an attorney for nonpayment of Bar dues under D.C.

In re Harris Lindsey

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 2020

Co. v. Barry Inn Realty, Inc., 130 F. … As the Board also noted, case law and D.C. Bar ethics opinions state that an attorney to the fiduciary of an estate does not have a fiduciary relationship with the estate. 14 14 See Hopkins v.

In Re Youmans

617 A.2d 534 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1993

Before us is a report and recommendation of the Board on Professional Responsibility that respondent be disbarred both on the basis of the imposition of reciprocal discipline under D.C.Bar R. … The Board noted further that New Jersey courts have described the offense covered by the theft by deception statute as one involving fraud, State v. Rodgers, 230 N.J.Super. 593 , 554 A.2d 866, 870 (App.Div.)