Case law

Dalton v. United States

58 A.3d 1005 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2013

Here, as in Wilson , the grounds establishing reasonable, articulable suspicion to justify an investigative stop increased to probable cause to arrest appellant and search him incident to the arrest. … relate to the subject matter of the witnesses’ testimony, and whether other, perhaps undisclosed, qualifying Jencks statements exist.

Weishapl v. Sowers

771 A.2d 1014 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 19, 2001

The police officers were confronted with two people claiming ownership to the establishment. … As reasons for its determination, the court found that: (1) no seizure of the property had occurred; and (2) the officer had qualified immunity which could be overcome only by evidence that he acted unreasonably in the performance

Clark's Liquors, Inc. v. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

274 A.2d 414 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 8, 1971

It was clearly established in Wasserman v. Simonson, C.A. … Clearly, therefore, the Board must approve this application as appropriate under Section 14(a) 6 of the Act.

Reneau v. District of Columbia

676 A.2d 913 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 30, 1996

Rather the Act clearly states that the test is “compatible with the character of the histone district.” D.C.Code § 5-1001(b). 47. … Reneau sought to qualify two expert witnesses — Mr. Kreidler and Ms. Adams. Only one, Ms. Adams, was qualified as an expert; her expertise was in architectural history. Mr.

J. Truitt Mgmt. v. Dc Com'n on Hum. Rts.

646 A.2d 1007 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 1994

Please provide certification from a qualified health authority that it is safe to enter your apartment, and that there is no danger of getting the disease and that the apartment is sanitary (no needles, etc. on which they … It is, of course, customary in litigation that the obligation to present and rebut evidence be clearly allocated between the parties.

In re Estate of Clarateen G. Nelson James M. Taylor, Jr.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 13, 2014

The court denied the 4 Item VIII of the will provides: In the event that the above-named Co-Personal Representatives shall, for any reason, fail to qualify, or having qualified, fail … Neither of these statements, however, clearly indicates that Judge Campbell believed James Taylor willfully disregarded an order, was not discharging his duties effectively, or failed to perform any specific duties as a

Henderson v. Charles E. Smith Management, Inc.

567 A.2d 59 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 8, 1989

First, the court must look for evidence of the parties’ consent to establish a principal-agent relationship. … Specifically, appellants argue that CES breached its standard of care by (1) failing to provide qualified personnel to perform the inspection, maintenance, and repairs on the boiler; (2) failing to cool down the boiler sufficiently

ANC 2C v. D.C. Alcoholic Beverage and Cannabis Board

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2025

The Amendment Act also established a procedure whereby an ANC—and only an ANC—could protest the issuance of a medical cannabis retailer license to an unlicensed establishment seeking to transition. … P. 15(a)(2)(A) was a “clearly worded jurisdictional rule” and that the “failure to name a party in the petition for review deprives the court of jurisdiction to grant the unnamed applicant any relief”).

Fountain v. Kelly

630 A.2d 684 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 23, 1993

Accordingly, the trial judge having vacated his mandatory injunction, we should not order him to reinstate it “unless the law and the facts clearly support the moving party.” … 1983 is not available to redress federal statutory) violations where Congress has foreclosed such enforcement of the statute in the enactment itself and where the statute did not create enforceable rights, privileges or immunities

In re Estate of Clarateen G. Nelson James M. Taylor, Jr.

85 A.3d 845 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 2014

, or having qualified, fail to complete the administration of my estate, I nominate and appoint my son, CARL J. … Neither of these statements, however, clearly indicates that Judge Campbell believed James Taylor willfully disregarded an order, was not discharging his duties effectively, or failed to perform any specific duties as

Gibson v. Johnson

492 A.2d 574 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 1985

D.C.Code § 45-902 (1973) establishes a tenant’s right to a 30 days' notice to quit. However, D.C.Code § 45-908 (1973) provides that a tenant may waive that right. 3 . Ms. … Crane Service Co., 457 A.2d 1102, 1105 (D.C.1983), which clearly contemplates disclosure of ownership interests. 11 .

Lawrence v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

611 A.2d 529 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 28, 1992

We do not so clearly separate the meanings of a noun and a verb connoting the same concept. 9 . … Barry was a qualified elector and that he was domiciled in the District. Petitioner conceded that "[Mr. Barry] did not lose his residence; he did not lose his domicile.”

Blodgett v. University Club

930 A.2d 210 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2007

Nevertheless, the record establishes that the Board’s creation and use of the report were protected by the qualified “common interest” privilege. 14 See Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011, 1024 (D.C.1990). … “Judicial discretion will not be reversed unless it appears that it was exercised on grounds, or for reasons, clearly untenable or to an extent clearly unreasonable.” Johnson v.

Unum Life Insurance Company of America v. District of Columbia

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 2020

Facts and Procedural History Among other reforms, the ACA established American Health Benefit Exchanges (“Exchanges”) to “facilitate[] the purchase” by individuals and small businesses of “qualified health plans … See Health Benefit Exchange Authority Establishment Act of 2011 (“Establishment Act”), D.C. Law 19-94, 59 D.C. Reg. 213 (codified as amended at D.C. Code §§ 31- 3171.01 to -3171.18).

Barnes v. Sherman

758 A.2d 936 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 2000

This finding is not clearly erroneous. … This established the value of the concern at $80,000, of which the court awarded Barnes $40,000.

Howard v. Carusi

11 D.C. 260 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 24, 1880

The second, which might otherwise be held to qualify the first, distinctly recognizes the power to- sell and devise in Samuel. … To avoid this conclusion, it is sought to establish a connection between the will and the deed in trust.

Brown v. United States

66 A.2d 491 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 17, 1949

The government contends that once it had established ’ a prima facie case, the burden was on defendant to' show that he had á license. … One of the proponents of the bill remarked: “We think there is a legitimate use for pistols.” 9 In our opinion the qualifying phrase “without a license” is not to be treated as an exception to the statute but rather as a

Butler v. United States

481 A.2d 431 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 1984

A substantial part of the government’s evidence at trial consisted of the testimony of immunized accomplice Hunter. … That testimony occurred approximately one month after the signing of his immunity agreement.

In re D.G.

583 A.2d 160 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1990

After six weeks without contact, the mother re-established ties with her children, and they were returned to her care. … The Fourth and Fifth Circuits held that the CWA gave the children causes of action, and that state officials were not entitled to qualified immunity from the suits.

Weatherly v. Second Northwest Coop. Homes Assoc., Inc.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 2023

Weatherly] is not a member and did not receive the property via the clearly delineated transfer process,” the magistrate judge “did not err in concluding that [Ms. … “To prevail on a claim for breach of contract, a party must establish (1) a valid contract between the parties; (2) an obligation or duty arising out of the contract; (3) a breach of that duty; and (4) damages caused by