Case law

Brown v. Jonz

572 A.2d 455 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 1990

Because this record clearly demonstrates that Brown was imprisoned at all relevant times, his cause of action for legal malpractice was tolled until he filed his pro se complaint in May 1988. … District of Columbia, 569 A.2d 595, 596 (D.C.1990) (parole does not qualify as a disability that will toll the statute of limitations). 6 .

Galberth v. United States

590 A.2d 990 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1991

We must accept this finding of fact, which, as the government concedes, is supported by the record and not clearly erroneous. … LaFave, Search and Seizure: A Treatise on the Fourth Amendment § 9.5(b), at 551 (2d ed. 1987) (“a general roadblock ... established on the chance of finding someone who has committed a serious crime” would “quite clearly”

Williams v. Richey

948 A.2d 564 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 29, 2008

This sentence is, rather, an agreed-upon immunity from liability which is forfeited under the conditions described. … In their brief appellees argue that it was proper for the trial court to order distribution according to a “formula” established in the binding arbitration.

Mokhiber v. Davis

537 A.2d 1100 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 17, 1988

Superior Court of California, 478 U.S. 1 , 106 S.Ct. 2735 , 92 L.Ed.2d 1 (1986) (Press-Enterprise II) to confirm a qualified first amendment right of access in a criminal case to pretrial proceedings inquiring into a motion … It is possible, of course, to have purely private disputes, but these, like all others, are not immune from the benefits of a public watchdog.

Logan v. United States

489 A.2d 485 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1985

We are not persuaded that these remarks were so clearly prejudicial as to amount to plain error. III. … Officer Hall’s testimony clearly establishes that at the time appellants were seized, the officers had probable cause to believe that appellants had committed traffic violations.

Logan v. Group Health Ass'n

173 A.2d 717 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 1961

No service, other than that provided by the staff, shall be procured for any member or listed dependent, except in accordance with policies established by the Medical Director. … that there were at the time several physicians on the staff qualified to perform a hysterectomy.

Weaver v. Grafio

595 A.2d 983 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1991

Assuming its falsity, this is clearly sufficient to qualify as a defamatory statement. See Johnson v. Johnson Publishing Co., 271 A.2d 696, 698 (D.C.1970) (“to accuse one of a crime is libel per se”). … Board of Professional Responsibility established by this court, and its Bar Counsel.

Melendez v. United States

26 A.3d 234 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 3, 2011

A defendant’s proffer that demonstrates only that the third party “had even stronger motives to murder the victim than the accused is insufficient, without more, to establish the required link to the offense charged.” … Moisés clearly experienced a “serious occurrence” when he witnessed Margot’s murder and was driven directly home, in silence, by the man he witnessed commit the murder.

United States v. Dobyns

679 A.2d 487 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1996

It is now well-established that inconsistent verdicts by themselves do not mandate reversal. … The evidence further established that Spencer had used an imitation weapon to get Hammond in the car.

Kelly v. Parents United for the District of Columbia Public Schools

641 A.2d 159 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 5, 1994

To establish liability under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 , see supra note 3, Parents United must show that (1) the District deprived it of a right, privilege, or immunity secured by the Constitution, and that (2) this deprivation was … Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (“To have a property interest in a benefit, a person clearly must have more than an abstract need or desire for it....

Ali v. United States

581 A.2d 368 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 1990

The government does not address this immunity instruction argument in its brief. … Appellant fails to carry his burden of showing plain error on the failure of the court to sua sponte give an immunity jury instruction as he has not demonstrated that Conway was given immunity from prosecution in exchange

Martin v. United States

606 A.2d 120 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1991

Rather, we simply direct that, on retrial, the jury be clearly instructed in conformity with these principles. 30 IV CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, Martin’s convictions must be and each is hereby reversed, and the … He said that he did see Gray with another man, presumably Pegues, outside the establishment. . Martin claimed that he had previously packed his own bags. .

Davis v. United States

272 A.2d 106 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1971

As his assailants left the scene they walked beneath a street light approximately twenty feet away and Chase was able to see their faces clearly when they turned and looked in his direction. … Appellants argue that complainant’s daughter, who was twelve years of age, was not sufficiently qualified by the court as competent to testify as a witness. 3 However, while the trial judge interrogated the witness only briefly

Nimetz v. Cappadona

596 A.2d 603 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 17, 1991

Cappadona failed to present sufficient evidence to establish a breach of the standard of care. Dr. Ni-metz opposed Mr. … a new principle of law, either by overruling clear past precedent on which litigants may have relied, or by deciding an issue of first impression whose resolution was not clearly foreshadowed.

Savoy Construction Co. v. Atchison & Keller, Inc.

388 A.2d 1221 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 1978

When either one of two different conclusions might reasonably have been drawn from [the evidence] . . . the appellate court may not reweigh the evidence or override the findings, except where it clearly appears they are manifestly … We recognize that in a conversion action the plaintiff shoulders the burden of proving every fact essential to the establishment of its right to recover damages from the defendant.

Matter of JWY

363 A.2d 674 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1976

Ricks related details of the assault in a manner which clearly portrayed the occurrence of penetration. Cf. Wheeler v. … Under the statutory scheme the grant of immunity rests in the sound discretion of the executive branch of the government. [13] See Earl v.

District of Columbia Insurance Placement Facility v. Washington

269 A.2d 45 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 1970

Petitioner was established under the express provisions of the D.C. … This provision clearly contemplates that the D. C.

M.B.E. Inc. v. Minority Business Opportunity Commission

485 A.2d 152 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 1984

business enterprise” and revoking M.B.E.’s certification to participate in the “sheltered market program” established by the Minority Contracting Act of 1976 (the Act), D.C. … The facts alleged in the formal notice, clearly showing that M.B.E. filed and maintained false information with the Commission, gave sufficient indication that the Commission charged M.B.E. with knowing and intentional violations

Lowrey v. Glassman

908 A.2d 30 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2006

“The owner of ... land ... is generally held to be qualified to express his opinion of its value merely by virtue of his ownership. … This does not mean, however, that Lowrey could have provided testimony sufficient to establish damages in conjunction with a claim of private nuisance.

Jarett v. Walker

201 A.2d 523 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1964

Walker, as appellant in No. 3448, claims as error, inter alia, that the court erred (1) in refusing to enter judgment n. o. v. on the jury verdict for compensatory damages as the verdict was clearly against the weight of … Prosecuting attorneys are well qualified to give advice on criminal proceedings, and their advice is sufficient to establish probable cause. Chapman v. Anderson, 55 App. D.C. 165 , 3 F.2d 336 .