Case law

Umanzor v. United States

803 A.2d 983 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2002

(William) Brown v. … Texas v. Brown, supra note 17, 460 U.S. at 742 , 103 S.Ct. 1535 (citations and internal quotation marks omitted) (emphasis added).

IN RE VICTOR MBA-JONAS

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 2, 2015

The Board on Professional Responsibility  2 took no exception to the Hearing Committee’s recommendation. … See Attorney Grievance Comm’n v. Mba-Jonas, 919 A.2d 669 (Md. 2007) (“Mba-Jonas I”). Thereafter, Bar Counsel initiated reciprocal disciplinary proceedings.

Floyd Long & Alonzo Ferrell v. United States

156 A.3d 698 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 2017

United States v. Brown, 700 A.2d 760, 762 (D.C. 1997). The judge in this case, however, stated only that the procedure leading to Mr. Bartek‟s identification of Mr. Long was “a standard show-up.” … See, e.g., Lyons v. United States, 833 A.2d 481, 486 (D.C. 2003); Brown, 700 A.2d at 763.

Avis Rent-A-Car System, Inc. v. District of Columbia

679 A.2d 492 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1996

Thomas v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employ *494 ment Servs., 547 A.2d 1034, 1037-38 (D.C.1988). … In re Wheels, Inc. v. Parking Violations Bureau of the Dep’t of Transp. of the City of New York, 80 N.Y.2d 1014 , 592 N.Y.S.2d 659 , 607 N.E.2d 806 (1992); In re Ryder Truck Rental, Inc. 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.

Dyer v. Bilaal

983 A.2d 349 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2009

Goozh v. Capitol Souvenir Co., 462 A.2d 1140, 1142 (D.C.1983) (quoting Brown v. Brown, 343 A.2d 59, 61 (D.C.1975)). Accordingly, we enforce a valid and binding settlement agreement just like “any other contract.” … Autera v. Robinson, 136 U.S.App. D.C. 216, 217, 419 F.2d 1197, 1198 (1969) (dispute about whether there was an oral agreement to settle the case); Brown v.

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.

Rivas v. United States

734 A.2d 655 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 1999

See Brown v. United States, 546 A.2d 390, 394-95 (D.C.1988). … See Parker v.

In re Gregory L. Lattimer

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 16, 2020

Comford v. United States, 947 A.2d 1181, 1188 (D.C. 2008) (internal quotation marks omitted). … See Wilkins v. Montgomery, 751 F.3d 214, 224, 225 (4th Cir. 2014).

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.

In re Lee

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2025

Respondent Brian V. … It is FURTHER ORDERED that respondent Brian V.

Burson v. Vogel

29 App. D.C. 388 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1907

Lowrie v. Taylor, 27 App. D. … Coffee v. Guerrant, 3 App. D. C. 497, 499; Norden v. Spaulding, 24 App. D. C. 286, 290; Gallagher v. Hien, 25 App. D. C. 77. 82; Lowrie v. Taylor, 27 App. D. C. 522, 526.

Whitman v. Noel

53 A.2d 280 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 23, 1947

Atlas Van Lines v. Austin, D.C.Mun. App., 44 A.2d 690 ; Yeager v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 33 A.2d 629 ; Ray v. Bruce, D.C.Mun.App., 31 A.2d 693 . See also 1425 F Street Corp. v. Jardín, D. … Atlas Van Lines v. Austin, supra footnote 2; Yeager v. District of Columbia, supra footnote 2. Code 1940 (Supp. V), § 11—772. See also Lee v. Zentz, D.C.Mun.App., 44 A.2d 872 ; Brown v.

In Re Molovinsky

723 A.2d 406 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 28, 1999

In District of Columbia v. Molovinsky, Civil Action No. 0003808-97 (Sup.Ct. … In Molovinsky v. The Fair Employment Council of Greater Washington, Respondent lost a $79,000 judgment and failed properly to preserve three issues for appellate review. 683 A.2d at 142-43 . In Molovinsky v.

Schwier v. Schwier

207 A.2d 115 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1965

Dixon v. Dixon, D.C.App., 190 A.2d 652, 654 (1963). … Coles v. Coles, D.C.App., 204 A.2d 330, 332 (1964).

Selk v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

497 A.2d 1056 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 1985

Washington Post Co. v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, 377 A.2d 436, 439 (D.C.1977); see D.C.Code § l-1510(a)(3)(E) (1981). … See Babazadeh v. District of Columbia Hackers’ License Appeal Board, 390 A.2d 1004, 1009 (D.C.1978) (an agency must inform a pro se litigant of his basic procedural rights).

Cambridge Management Co. v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission

515 A.2d 721 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 1986

See Dankman v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, 443 A.2d 507, 513 (D.C.1981) (en banc). … See Dankman v. District of Columbia Board of Elections and Ethics, supra, 443 A.2d at 513 (“a validly promulgated regulation ... is binding upon the Board ... [and] has the force and effect of law” (citations omitted)).

Grant v. United States

28 App. D.C. 169 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1906

The first assignment of error relates to the exception taken to the evidence of the declarations of the wounded woman as given by the witness Brown. … Many authorities sustaining their admissibility are reviewed in the following cases in this court: Snowden v. United States, 2 App. D. C. 89; Washington & G. R. Co. v. McLane, 11 App. D. C. 220; Patterson v.

Burrows v. Wetherill

4 F. Cas. 846 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 15, 1854

Again: “His claim is not for an improvement upon Brown’s leverage, but for a leverage so described that the description comprehended Brown’s. We are therefore of opinion that the *331 patent cannot be sustained.” … The court, in the case of Gayler et al. v.