Case law

Lawrence v. United States

318 A.2d 890 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 4, 1974

See Reed v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 775 (1973). *891 In Small v. United States, D.C.App., 304 A.2d 641, 644 (1973), we recently quoted with approval language from United States v. … United States v. Reed, supra at 203, 476 F.2d at 1150 .

Bueno v. United States

761 A.2d 856 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2000

In Hicks v. … United States v.

Guzman v. United States

769 A.2d 785 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 2001

See Brown v. United States, 683 A.2d 118, 124 (D.C.1996) (citations omitted). Thus, “‘bias is always a proper subject of cross examination.’ ” Id. (quoting Jones v. United States, 516 A.2d 513, 517 (D.C.1986)). … See Brown, 683 A.2d at 124 (D.C.1996) (citing Ford v. United States, 549 A.2d 1124, 1127 (D.C.1988)).

Ginyard v. United States

232 A.2d 590 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 1967

Hood v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 16 , 365 F.2d 949, 951 (1966). See also Jackson v. United States, D.C.App., 232 A.2d 576 (decided August 10, 1967). … United States v. Indiviglio, 352 F.2d 276, 279 (2d Cir. 1965) (en banc), cert. denied, 383 U.S. 907 , 86 S.Ct. 887 , 15 L. Ed.2d 663 (1966). 2 . See also Brown v.

Van Durr v. Kator Scott, Chartered

788 A.2d 579 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 10, 2002

Brown v. Plant, 157 A.2d 289, 291 (D.C.Mun.App.1960). Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., 453 A.2d 110, 111 (D.C.1982) (some citations omitted). … See, e.g., Spires v. Spires, 743 A.2d 186, 191 (D.C.1999); Mbakpuo v. Ekeanyanwu, 738 A.2d 776, 780-81 (D.C.1999); Wright v. Robbins, 733 A.2d 948, 949 (D.C.1999); Stockard v.

Reed v. United States

312 A.2d 775 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 1973

Hill v. … The second, prepared by the Classification Committee at the Youth Center was an evaluation and recommendation concurred in by the Board of Parole.

Daniels v. Director of Vehicles & Traffic of D. of C.

143 A.2d 95 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 20, 1958

For an explanation of the “point system” see Traffic and Motor Vehicle Reg *96 ulations for the District of Columbia, Part V; Lambert v. Board of Com’rs of District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 116 A.2d 926 . 2 . Ritch v.

Busey v. United States

747 A.2d 1153 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 23, 2000

Brown, with the help of an investigator. The investigator supplied an affidavit stating that Mr. … Minick v.

In re Venable

641 A.2d 853 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 22, 1993

In its Report and Recommendation, the Board on Professional Responsibility concluded that the offense of which Venable was convicted involves moral turpitude per se, and recommended disbarment. … North Carolina v. Alford, 400 U.S. 25 , 91 S.Ct. 160 , 27 L.Ed.2d 162 (1970). . We direct respondent’s attention to D.C.Bar R.

American Federation of State, County, & Municipal Employees, District Council 20, Local 2087 v. University of the District of Columbia

166 A.3d 967 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2017

By the article‟s plain meaning, see Abdelrhman v. … (establishing and identifying the powers of the Public Employee Relations Board). In its Decision and Order, the PERB affirmed the arbitration award.

In re Neeb

964 A.2d 1278 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 22, 2009

consideration of the certified copy of the order issued by the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania suspending respondent by consent for one year and one day coupled with a fitness requirement, See Office of Disciplinary Counsel v. … in our Rule XI, § 16(d).”); In re Powell, 860 A.2d 836, 837 (D.C.2004) (Because District of Columbia attorneys are obligated to notify the Secretary of the Bar of any change of address within 30 days of such change, the Board

Elliott v. Healthcare Corp.

629 A.2d 6 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 26, 1993

As a matter of law, a report to the Unemployment Compensation Board “is absolutely privileged.” Goggins v. Hoddes, 265 A.2d 302, 303 (D.C.1970). … See, e.g., Press v. Howard Univ., 540 A.2d 733 (D.C.1988); Waldon v. Covington, 415 A.2d 1070, 1076 (D.C.1980); Schoen v.

Shanklin v. Bender

283 A.2d 651 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 1971

See generally Mouldings Division of Thompson Ind. v. Review Board, 122 Ind.App. 497 , 106 N.E.2d 402 (1952); Hendershot v. … See Hartley v. Vitiello, supra, Mouldings Division of Thompson Ind. v. Review Board, supra.

Gilles v. Ware

615 A.2d 533 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 6, 1992

Appellant did not exercise his right to appeal the examiner’s decision to an Appeals Board. See D.C. Code §§ 40-632 , -634 (1990); 18 DCMR §§ 1004.1, 3014.1, 3014.9 (1987); Kuflom v. … The statute authorizing the Appeals Board only permits that Board to review decisions of the hearing examiner and to consider the established record; it does not allow the Board to hear claims of agency negligence or to award

Reliable Home Appliances, Inc. v. District of Columbia

219 A.2d 501 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 12, 1966

Ayer & Son, Inc., 17 T.C. 631 (1951); Providence Journal Co. v. Broderick, 104 F.2d 614, 616 (1st Cir., 1939); Union Bed & Spring Co. v. … Blyther v. Pentagon Federal Credit Union, D.C.Mun.App., 182 A.2d 892 (1962); Turek v. Yellow Cab Co. of D. C., D.C.Mun.App., 131 A.2d 923 (1957); Dewey v. Clark, 86 U.S.App.D.C. 137 , 180 F.2d 766 (1950).

Jenkins v. United States

980 A.2d 421 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2009

Brown v. United States, 795 A.2d 56, 63 (D.C.2002). We have applied “a fact-based approach” in determining whether separate criminal acts have occurred. Morris v. … Blockburger v.

United States v. Smith

354 A.2d 510 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1976

In Chaffin v. … Consolidated with United States v.

Pollen v. United States

207 A.2d 114 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1965

When the bus arrived, upon his demand, she acquiesced in a kiss, after which he agreed to let her board the bus. Appellant testified in his own behalf and stated he was not present at the time and place of the offense. … Willis v. United States, D.C.App., 198 A.2d 751 (1964).

Abbott v. District of Columbia

154 A.2d 362 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 1959

Commonwealth v. Ungar, 190 Pa.Super. 43 , 151 A.2d 782 . Affirmed 1 . The operation of the Point System and the procedure for appealing an order of suspension or revocation are discussed in some detail in Chappelle v. … Board of Commissioners, D.C.Mun.App., 110 A.2d 697 , and Ritch v. Director of Vehicles and Traffic, D.C.Mun.App., 124 A.2d 301 .

Clements v. United States

669 A.2d 1271 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 28, 1995

See Adkins v. Morton, 494 A.2d 652, 662 (D.C.1985); New York Life Ins. Co. v. Taylor, 79 U.S.App.D.C. 66, 69 , 147 F.2d 297, 300 (1945). … Curtis and Brown discussed the physical evidence found at the scene. Bamel testified that he had visited Hackney at D.C.