Case law

In Re Estate of Munawar

981 A.2d 584 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 2009

for financing on her own, but then discovered she could qualify on her own and attended the closing by herself. … Nonetheless, there is a "presumption that a deed is what it purports to be on its face, and one who seeks to establish the contrary has the burden of doing so by clear and convincing evidence." Smart v.

Naccache v. Taylor

199 A.3d 181 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2018

And if a party elected not to establish a supplemental needs trust, he or she would in all likelihood no longer qualify for Medicaid benefits in any case. … By its wording, the District lien clearly covers payments actually made.

Johnson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2020

In support of admitting this testimony, we have agreed with the trial court that Crowley need not have been qualified as an expert. … that the trial court’s factual findings are ‘plainly wrong,’ or ‘without evidence to support them.’” 40 “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the

Carle v. United States

705 A.2d 682 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1998

To establish a prima facie fair cross-section violation, a defendant must show: (1) that the group alleged to be excluded is a “distinctive group” in the community; (2) that the representation of this group in venires from … Even if a defendant succeeds in these showings, however, the state can justify its procedures by demonstrating that they clearly advance “a significant state interest.” Id. at 367 , 99 S.Ct. at 670 .

Johnson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 16, 2020

In support of admitting this testimony, we have agreed with the trial court that Crowley need not have been qualified as an expert. … that the trial court’s factual findings are ‘plainly wrong,’ or ‘without evidence to support them.’” 40 “A finding is clearly erroneous when although there is evidence to support it, the reviewing court on the

SHEPARDSON R. BLAIR v. UNITED STATES

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 7, 2015

1)(B), or of a “qualifying District of Columbia offense,” 42 U.S.C. § 14135b (a)(1). … “Where suppression fails to yield ‘appreciable deterrence,’ exclusion is ‘clearly . . . unwarranted.’” (Willie) Davis v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2419, 2426-27 (2011) (quoting Janis, 428 U.S. at 454).

Nelson v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

530 A.2d 1193 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 1987

The Senate report accompanying the reform explained: Section 7(c) would be changed to establish more realistic qualifying wage provisions, raising the minimum requirement from $150 to $276, raising the maximum provision from … For me, this case does not involve so much a deference *1202 to an agency's construction of its statute, but more an application of clearly drafted language.

Estep v. Construction General, Inc.

546 A.2d 376 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 1988

So long as general contractors have not defaulted on this statutory obligation to secure back-up compensation for subcontractor employees, they qualify for § 5(a)'s grant of immunity." *388 Johnson, supra, 467 U.S. at 939 … The general function which it was established to perform is the enactment of laws that operate and govern throughout the United States.

Eibl v. Kogan

494 A.2d 640 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1985

As we have noted in a more recent case, “[I]f a case involves the merits and performance of scientific treatment, complex medical procedures, or the exercise of professional skill and judgment, a jury will not be qualified … While Abbey was clearly such an appropriate case, it is readily distinguishable from the present case.

BiotechPharma, LLC v. Ludwig & Robinson, PLLC

98 A.3d 986 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 2014

As a 10 Perhaps other types of filings or communications will qualify as a request for arbitration under Bar Rule XIII. … Lawyers are required to renew their bar membership every year, however, and those who have done so since 1995 cannot now claim immunity from the rule.

Price v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

645 A.2d 594 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 4, 1994

Since that number exceeded the 13,233 figure established by using the November 1989 roll, the petition was accepted for further processing. … Nor could the Council amend the Charter Amendments by enacting the IPA since, as the Self-Government Act clearly provides, the Charter may be amended only as provided in D.C.Code § l-205(a) (1992). 16 Further, nothing in

Wilson v. Thornton

416 A.2d 228 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 29, 1980

First, it has now been clearly established that where the heirs stand in the patient’s shoes and there is no controversy between the executor and the heirs, the united heirs are the patient’s “legal representatives” and may … Strother and Emmett clearly establish that the narrower term “personal representative” is subsumed within the broader term, “legal representative”. . While Thomas v.

O'CONNELL v. Maryland Steel Erectors, Inc.

495 A.2d 1134 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 1985

may have relied ... or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.” … In agreeing that Rodrigue should not have been applied retroactively, the Supreme Court emphasized that in addition to being a case of first impression in that court, Rodrigue overruled decisions clearly establishing “that

Keefe Co. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

409 A.2d 624 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 10, 1979

It is an established maxim of review that an agency’s interpretation of its administrative regulations must be given great deference and is to be upheld by this court unless clearly erroneous or inconsistent with the regulations … There is substantial evidence from the whole record, id. at 670 , to indicate that the Zoning Administrator’s determination that petitioner could not qualify as a “similar professional person” under § 4101.44, was based on

In Re Estate of Wilson

416 A.2d 228 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 29, 1980

First, it has now been clearly established that where the heirs stand in the patient's shoes and there is no controversy between the executor and the heirs, the united heirs are the patient's "legal representatives" and may … Strother and Emmett clearly establish that the narrower term "personal representative" is subsumed within the broader term, "legal representative". [7] While Thomas v.

Burch v. Amsterdam Corporation

366 A.2d 1079 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1976

Moreover, the overwhelming majority of courts presented with similar arguments in product liability cases have held that compliance with federal and state requirements for the manufacture and sale of products does not immunize … Parke, Davis & Co., 9 Cal.3d 51 , 107 Cal.Rptr. 45 , 507 P.2d 653 (1973) (en banc) (compliance with warnings required by Food and Drug Administration regulations not sufficient to immunize manufacturer from liability); Arata

Barlow, Jr. v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 14, 2026

Barlow, Jr., was the primary beneficiary of a trust established to benefit him as well as his relatives. … Thus, the trial court did not err (and certainly did not clearly err) in determining that the 2021 deed transferred the property from the trust, and not from ATC as an entity separate from the trust. Although Mr.

Cinquan Cartledge v. United States

100 A.3d 147 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 2014

Appellant then testified in his defense that he was a resident of Vista Ridge (living with his mother in her apartment) and therefore immune from the District‟s Barring Policy. … 7 The government‟s evidence was clearly legally sufficient when viewed under the appropriate standard of review.9 The police officers‟ testimony provided a sufficient basis to establish appellant‟s unlawful entry

Gaston v. United States

535 A.2d 893 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1988

United States, 391 U.S. 742, 90 S.Ct. 1463 , 25 L.Ed.2d 747 (1970) established the proposition that a defendant must know the direct consequences of a plea before he can plead intelligently. … Appellant clearly alleged that her counsel had assured her that she would qualify as an addict under the addict exception to the Uniform Controlled Substance Act.

District of Columbia v. American Federation of Government Employees

619 A.2d 77 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 15, 1993

of constitutionality, and that the burden is on one complaining of a due process violation to establish that the legislature has acted in an arbitrary and irrational way. … The Supreme Court concluded that "whilst the District may, in a sense, be called a State, it is such in a very qualified sense.” Id 6 . Kendall v. United States ex rel.