Case law

CHH CAPITAL HOTEL PARTNERS, LP v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA

152 A.3d 591 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2017

CHH next appealed to the Board of Real Property Assessments and Appeals4 (“BRPAA” or “the Board”). … Hovermale’s assessments, as submitted to the Board. Though, regrettably, there is no indication why the Board departed below Mr.

In Re Lebowitz

944 A.2d 444 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2008

As the Supreme Court of California explained in Stratmore v. … Gould v. State of Florida, 99 Fla. 662 , 127 So. 309, 311 (1930) (emphasis added). 2 .

In Re Luvara

942 A.2d 1125 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 7, 2008

Reconsideration was denied on March 13, 2007. 1 Neither respondent nor Bar Counsel takes exception to the Board’s recommendation. … (v) The actor has suffered any prior conviction for any violation of this section or any predecessor law hereto, or has been convicted, under any Federal statute or statute of any other state, of an act which would be a violation

Stanford Hotels Corp. v. Potomac Creek Associates, L.P.

18 A.3d 725 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2011

Clay v. Faison, 583 A.2d 1388, 1390 (D.C.1990) (citing Flack v. … See, e.g., Kesler v.

In Re Borders

665 A.2d 1381 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 1995

The facts of the crimes, which we do not detail here, are described in United States v. Borders, 693 F.2d 1318, 1319-24 (11th Cir.1982), cert. denied, 461 U.S. 905 , 103 S.Ct. 1875 , 76 L.Ed.2d 807 (1983). … The Hearing Committee and the Board agreed that the third and fourth Roundtree factors counsel against petitioner’s reinstatement.

Coleman v. United States

311 A.2d 496 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 16, 1973

In contending for the application of the Housing Regulations, the tenants sought to bring into play in these cases the holding of this court in Brown v. … In Knox Hill Tenant Council v.

In Re DJ

532 A.2d 138 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 19, 1987

Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979). Citizens have no legal duty to talk to the police. See Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., 453 A.2d 110, 112 (D.C.1982). … Florida v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 497-98 , 103 S.Ct. 1319, 1324 , 75 L.Ed.2d 229 (1983) (plurality opinion) (citations omitted); Brown v. Texas, supra, 443 U.S. at 52 , 99 S.Ct. at 2641 ; United States v.

Lawson v. United States

596 A.2d 504 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 1991

Remmer v. United States, 347 U.S. 227, 230 , 74 S.Ct. 450, 451 , 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954). After taking testimony both from Mr. Brown and other witnesses, the court found that Mr. … Brown had not seen any gambling at the after-hours establishment and that his judgment was not affected. The court also credited Brown’s statement that he did not mention this chance meeting to other jurors.

In Re Mirrer

632 A.2d 117 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 28, 1993

See People v. … In People v.

Jones v. United States

432 A.2d 364 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 29, 1981

Brown was a “post-Bolton, pre-1970 amendments” acquittee who challenged the burden of proof at his post-acquittal judicial hearing. … [Vitek v.

Ramey v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

950 A.2d 33 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2008

District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 625 A.2d 886 (D.C.1993); Spartin v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 584 A.2d 564 (D.C.1990); and Dailey v. … On petitioner’s appeal to the Compensation Review Board (CRB or Board), that body likewise concluded that he had not invoked the presumption of compensability “by showing that a particular incident or situation at work was

In re: Robert W. Mance, III

171 A.3d 1133 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 26, 2017

V. … The Board recommended that Mr.

Blakeney v. United States

653 A.2d 365 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1995

See, e.g., Gray v. … Thus, we have facts nowhere close to those that concerned the dissenter in Brown . 2 .

United States v. Smith

293 A.2d 856 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 1972

Brown v. State, 3 Md.App. 90 , 238 A.2d 147 (1968); Bielicki v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, 57 Cal.2d 602 , 21 Cal.Rptr. 552 , 371 P.2d 288 (1962); Britt v. … State, 10 Md.App. 565 , 271 A.2d 770 (1970), wherein the Maryland court said that Brown v.

In re Hermina

907 A.2d 790 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2006

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION OF THE BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY This reciprocal discipline matter comes before the Board on Professional Responsibility (the “Board”) as a result of discipline imposed by the Court of … Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Maryland v. Hermina, Misc.

Levi v. District of Columbia

697 A.2d 1201 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 1997

Levi testified that although an orthopedist had given him medication, a back brace, and a bed board, he still suffered from back pain “all the time.” During his testimony, Mr. … Hackes v. Hackes, 446 A.2d 396, 398 (D.C. 1982); accord, Brown v. United States, 627 A.2d 499, 508 (D.C.1993). But even assuming for the sake of argument that the court should have considered Mr.

Barnabo v. Lewis

81 A.2d 659 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1951

In Hearn v. … In Hearn v.

A & G Ltd. Partnership v. Joint Committee on Landmarks of the National Capital

449 A.2d 291 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1982

Latimer v. Joint Committee on Landmarks of the National Capital, D.C.App., 345 A.2d 484, 485 (1975) (footnote omitted). … Under § 5-1003, the Joint Committee, as the body which functioned as the District of Columbia State Review Board at the time of the Act’s passage, is authorized to act as the local Historic Preservation Review Board until

Luck v. District of Columbia

617 A.2d 509 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 1992

On March 30, 1987, the Parole Board issued a warrant for his arrest for violations of the conditions of his release. On April 13, 1987, he was arrested on the Board’s warrant. … Schwegmann Bros. v.

Radbod v. Mohim Superior Court

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 2022

Id. at 1158.  11 The Board of Judges of the Superior Court subsequently adopted, verbatim, a 2010 amendment to Rule 56(f) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. … Brown v. Brown, 343 A.2d 59, 61 (D.C. 1975). One well established exception is the full or partial performance by a person relying on an oral contract disposing of an interest in land. See, e.g., Interdonato v.