Case law

IN RE: Z.B.

131 A.3d 351 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 2016

United States v. … Brown v. United States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1020 (D.C. 1991). “[W]e will not disturb the trial judge’s findings of fact unless they lack evidentiary support in the record . . . .

In re Haupt

801 A.2d 27 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 6, 2002

See Montgomery County Bar Ass’n, Inc. v. Haupt, 277 Md. 326 , 353 A.2d 629 (1976) (per curiam) (Haupt I); Atty Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. … The Board denied petitioner’s first petition for failure of proof.

Royal v. D.C. Metropolitan Police Dep't & D.C. Office of Employee Appeals

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 2, 2024

v. … Works v.

Askin v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission

521 A.2d 669 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1987

We encountered a somewhat analogous situation in Poyner v. Police and Firemen’s Retirement and Relief Board, 456 A.2d 1249 (D.C.1983). … Feldman v. D.C.

Capitol Hill Hospital v. Jones

532 A.2d 89 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 13, 1987

See, e.g., Dickerson v. Pritchard, 706 F.2d 256, 259 (8th Cir.1983); Belton v. … See, e.g., Davis v. Abbuhl, supra; Phillips v. District of Columbia, supra. 15 .

In re Domingues

769 A.2d 794 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2001

In his response to the report and recommendation of our Board, Domingues acquiesces to the disposition recommended by the Board, but takes exception to the portion of the Board’s recommendation that characterizes him as having … V. This court will adopt the recommended disposition of the Board “unless to do so would foster a tendency toward inconsistent dispositions for comparable conduct or would otherwise be unwarranted.” D.C. Bar R.

Allison Gas Turbine Division of General Motors Corp. v. District of Columbia

642 A.2d 841 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1994

Co. v. … Town of Forks, 108 Wash.2d 262 , 737 P.2d 1257 (1987) (en banc), and Brown v.

Pfeffer v. Ernst

82 A.2d 763 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 1951

In so holding we followed the rulings in National Labor Relations Board v. Fansteel Metallurgical Corp., 306 U.S. 240 , 59 S.Ct. 490 , 83 L.Ed. 627 ; Associated Press v. … National Labor Relations Board, 301 U.S. 103 , 57 S.Ct. 650 , 81 L.Ed. 953 ; E. Anthony & Sons v.

Johnson v. United States

360 A.2d 502 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 14, 1976

Kendall v. United States, D.C.App., 349 A.2d 464 (1975). … At this time, appellant was attired in a brown miniskirt and wore a different style wig than that worn by the robber. 3 .

Wiggins v. Capital Transit Company

122 A.2d 117 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 1956

A neighbor, who boarded the bus just ahead of plaintiff, testified that the bus started with a “little jerk,” and that she did not fall “because the bus was so crowded there was no place to fall.” … The bus operator testified that he waited a few seconds after plaintiff boarded before starting, that “he did not start suddenly, but that it was a normal start.”

In re Joyner

884 A.2d 91 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 2005

See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Joyner, 376 Md. 694 , 831 A.2d 451 (2003). … the Board, instead, elects to proceed de novo pursuant to D.C.

In Re Hollis

968 A.2d 1037 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 26, 2009

Grievance Comm’n v. Hollis, 347 Md. 547 , 702 A.2d 223 (1997). In 1998, we reciprocally disbarred him in the District of Columbia in a proceeding in which he did not participate. In re Hollis, 719 A.2d 965 (D.C.1998). … The Board on Professional Responsibility, after reviewing the report of the Hearing Committee and hearing from petitioner, unanimously endorsed this recommendation.

Williams v. United States

470 A.2d 302 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1984

See Connecticut Board of Pardons v. … See also United States v. Pollack, 655 F.2d 243, 246 (D.C.Cir.1980). This court observed in Nunzio, supra, 430 A.2d at 1374 that: We have long adhered to that view. Brown v.

Bank of America, N.A. v. District of Columbia

80 A.3d 650 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 2013

No. 91-907, [91t Cong., 2d Sess. 62, 63 (1970)]”; Brown v. … See Psaromatis v.

In re Sapero

942 A.2d 645 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 2008

Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Sapero, 400 Md. 461 , 929 A.2d 488 (2007). Respondent did not report the reprimand to Bar Counsel as required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 11(b). … Consequently, we referred the matter to the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) and directed the Board to recommend whether identical, greater or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline or

In re Jenkins

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2023

(quoting District of Columbia v. Wical Ltd. P’ship, 630 A.2d 174, 182 (D.C. 1993))). … XI, § 16, and Board Prof. Resp. R. 9. So ordered.

Talbert v. United States

42 App. D.C. 1 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1914

As to the evidence relating to the pledging of certain articles by Kitty Brown and others, the evidence tended to show that this was with the approval of defendant. … Smith v. People, 53 N. Y. 111, 113 , 13 Am. Rep. 474 ; People v. Call, 1 Denio, 120, 123 , 43 Am. Dec. 655 ; Oxford v. State, 33 Ala. 416, 418 ; State v. Davenport, 38 S. C. 348, 353, 17 S. E. 37 ; Crook v.

Dingwall v. District of Columbia Water and Sewer Authority

800 A.2d 686 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 30, 2002

See, e.g., Campbell v. … Armory Board also stated that the Board will be "subject to all laws applicable" to the other agencies and instrumentalities of the District government. This is precisely why the division's reliance on Downs v.

Jubilee Housing, Inc. v. District of Columbia Water & Sewer Authority

774 A.2d 281 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 7, 2001

See District of Columbia v. Gallagher, 734 A.2d 1087, 1090 (D.C.1999). II. We begin with the applicable legal principles. We look first to the plain meaning of the statute. As we said in J. Parreco & Son v. Rental Hous. … See Duke City Lumber Co. v. Butz, 382 F.Supp. 362, 372 (D.D.C.1974), 9 aff'd on other grounds, 176 U.S.App. D.C. 218, 539 F.2d 220 (1976), cert. denied sub nom, Duke City Lumber Co. v.

District of Columbia v. Jones

442 A.2d 512 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1982

See Board of Regents v. Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 577, 92 S.Ct. at 2709 . … Money v. Cullinane, supra at 1000 . Wells v. District of Columbia Board of Education, D.C.