Case law

Simplicio v. National Scientific Personnel Bureau, Inc.

180 A.2d 500 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 3, 1962

Stock in lieu of same, providing I am informed at least two weeks in advance in order that I may make other arrangements to meet my obligations. * * * * * * “If I am accepted as an officer, stockholder and member of the Board … Western Machinery Company v. Consolidated Uranium Mines, Inc., 10th Cir., 247 F.2d 685 ; Smith v. Onyx Oil and Chemical Co., 3rd Cir., 218 F.2d 104 , 50 A.L.R.2d 216 . 3 . Elkhorn-Hazard Coal Co. v.

Green v. United States

234 A.2d 177 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 1967

O’Bryant v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 223 A.2d 799 (1966); Pollen v. United States, D.C.App., 207 A.2d 114 (1965). … Brown v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 43 , 365 F.2d 976 (1966); Perry v. United States, D.C.App., 230 A.2d 721 (1967); White v. United States, D.C.App., 222 A.2d 843 (1966).

DeVita v. District of Columbia

74 A.3d 714 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2013

There is a right of administrative appeal to the Traffic Adjudication Appeals Board (“Board”). D.C.Code *718 § 50-2304.02(a) (2001). … The judgment of the Traffic Adjudication Appeals Board is hereby Affirmed. .

In re Hoffman

919 A.2d 1146 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 29, 2007

We further directed the Board on Professional Responsibility (“Board”) to recommend whether identical, greater, or lesser discipline should be imposed as reciprocal discipline or whether it would proceed de novo. … Bar Counsel did not initiate reciprocal disciplin-aiy proceedings based on this resignation, which is "tantamount to disbarment,” Florida Bar v.

In re Massagli

768 A.2d 993 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 1, 2001

Massagli by consent from the practice of law in the State of Maryland. 1 Attorney Grievance Comm’n of Md. v. Massagli 352 Md. 277 , 721 A.2d 698 (1998). … Bar Counsel has informed the court that she takes no exception to the Board’s report and recommendation. Respondent has not filed any opposition to the Board’s report and recommendation.

Lathon v. Hadley Memorial Hospital

250 A.2d 548 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 28, 1969

Brown v. … Taylor v. United Broadcasting Co., D.C.Mun.App., 61 A.2d 480 (1948); Zis v. Herman, D.C. Mun.App., 39 A.2d 65 (1944).

Reavis v. United States

395 A.2d 75 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 24, 1978

In Stovall v. … See Brown v. United States, D.C.App., 349 A.2d 467 (1975) (pretrial suppression of identification evidence improper where based solely on finding that the evidence was “too weak”). See also Brown v.

Hammond v. United States

501 A.2d 796 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1985

Brown v. United States, 464 A.2d 120, 123 (D.C.1983); March v. United States, 362 A.2d 691, 704 (D.C.1976). … See Letsinger v.

Sloan v. United States

527 A.2d 1277 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 1987

When Brown came back outside a few minutes later, he observed that appellant was lying on the ground bleeding from the mouth, and had four false teeth knocked out. Brown helped him inside, and an ambulance was called. … See Springer v.

Morgan v. United States

47 A.3d 532 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 2012

Brown v. United States, 900 A.2d 184, 188 (D.C.2006). We review a trial court’s revocation of a defendant’s probation for abuse of discretion. See Saunders v. … Morrissey v. Brewer, 408 U.S. 471, 480 , 92 S.Ct. 2593 , 33 L.Ed.2d 484 (1972). Nonetheless, “probation revocation is governed by the ‘minimum requirements of due process.’” Brown, 900 A.2d at 188 (quoting Young v.

Heller v. Edwards

104 A.2d 528 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 3, 1954

Brown v. Randle & Garvin, D.C.Mun.App., 32 A.2d 104 . … Whitman v. Noel, D.C.Mun.App., 53 A.2d 280 1 There we held that an order denying a defendant’s motion for summary judgment on the ground of limitations was not appealable. In still another case, Kaplowitz Bros. v.

Smallwood v. District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Department

956 A.2d 705 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2008

Stokes v. District of Columbia, 502 A.2d 1006, 1010 (D.C.1985). Thus, we “will not disturb the agency’s decision if it flows rationally from the facts which are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” Oubre v. … Franchak v. District of Columbia Metro. Police Dep’t, 932 A.2d 1086, 1091 (D.C.2007). See also Vargo v.

Thomas v. United States

650 A.2d 183 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1994

McNeely, 99 Ill.App.3d 1021 , 55 Ill.Dec. 321 , 426 N.E.2d 296, 299 (1981); Brown v. State, 380 N.E.2d 609, 611 (Ind.Ct.App.1978); State v. … Brown, 195 Neb. 321 , 237 N.W.2d 861, 864 (1976) (citation omitted); Sheriff v. Benson, 89 Nev. 160 , 509 P.2d 554, 555 (1973) (citation omitted); State v.

In re Ellis

841 A.2d 1264 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 2004

No exceptions to the Board’s Report and Recommendation have been filed. … In that case, United States v. Hart (appeal no. 94-7194), respondent did not file an appellate brief and record excerpt or request a further extension to file.

In re Diviacchi

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 1, 2024

See Sitcov v. D.C. … Shelton v.

Feltman v. Sarbov

366 A.2d 137 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 1976

In Price v. Griffin, supra at 589, where a judgment for punitive damages was also reversed, we said: Punitive or exemplary damages are not a favorite of the law. Brown v. … Franklin Investment Co. v. Homburg, D.C.App., 252 A.2d 95 (1969). Washington Garage Co. v. Klare, D.C.App., 248 A.2d 681 (1968). However, it has been said that such damages are not favored. Brown v.

In re Mba-Jonas

118 A.3d 785 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2015

The Board on Professional Responsibility took no exception to the Hearing Committee’s recommendation. We accept the Hearing Committee’s recommendation. I. The Maryland Court of Appeals indefinitely suspended Mr. … See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mba-Jonas, 397 Md. 690 , 919 A.2d 669 (2007) (“Mba-Jonas /”). Thereafter, Bar Counsel initiated reciprocal disciplinary proceedings.

Bynum v. United States

386 A.2d 684 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 8, 1978

Prior to release I removed a pair of brown cloth gloves from Bynum’s rear pants pocket and there was a pry bar in the auto he was driving on the floor to the left of the driver’s seat. … See, e. g., Whiteley v. Warden, 401 U.S. 560, 564 , 91 S.Ct. 1031 , 28 L.Ed.2d 306 (1971); Spinelli v. United States, supra; United States v. Ventresca, supra; Aguilar v. Texas, supra; United States v.

Sims v. Westminster Investing Corp.

648 A.2d 940 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1994

Georgetoum Entertainment Corp. v. District of Columbia, 496 A.2d 587, 590 (D.C.1985) (citing Edmund J. Flynn Co. v. LaVay, 431 A.2d 543, 546-47 (D.C.1981)). … See Brown v. Brown, 343 A.2d 59 (D.C.1975). However, in this case, the record shows that the parties had not reached a final agreement when the original praecipe was filed. 8 . See supra note 1.

Schwab v. Prawde ex rel. State Farm Mutual Insurance

131 A.2d 292 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1957

v. … The short answer to this contention is found in the case of Bierman v.