Case law

Gethers v. United States

684 A.2d 1266 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1996

Brown v. United States, 409 A.2d 1093, 1097 (D.C.1979) (citations omitted); accord, Beale v. United States, 465 A.2d 796, 803 (D.C.1983), cert. denied, 465 U.S. 1030 , 104 S.Ct. 1293 , 79 L.Ed.2d 694 (1984). … Our recent decision in Winfield v. United States, 676 A.2d 1 (D.C.1996) (en banc), replaced the “clearly link” portion of the standard articulated in Brown and Beale with the test for determining relevance in general.

In Re Downey

960 A.2d 1135 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 4, 2008

Accordingly, we grant respondent’s motion to stay the suspension that § 10(c) would otherwise require, without prejudice to Bar Counsel’s moving to vacate the stay after the Board on Professional Responsibility’s report and … Restaurant Equip. & Supply Depot, Inc. v. Gutierrez, 852 A.2d 951, 956 (D.C.2004) (citation omitted).

Rachal v. Rachal

412 A.2d 1202 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 25, 1980

Bazemore v. Davis, D.C.App., 394 A.2d 1377 (1978); Dixon v. Dixon, D.C.App., 190 A.2d 652, 654 (1963); Knight v. Knight, D.C.Mun.App., 134 A.2d 380, 381 (1957). … Beck-with v. Beckwith, D.C.App., 355 A.2d 537 (1976).

Johnson v. United States

636 A.2d 978 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 3, 1994

Brown v. … See, e.g., Moore v.

Gammeter v. Thropp

42 App. D.C. 564 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 7, 1914

The construction to be placed upon the counts is properly stated by the Board of Examiners in Chief as follows: “In our opinion these counts are not hroad enough to cover a mere guide ring which is used to direct a bead strip … Burson v. Vogel, 29 App. D. C. 388; Norling v. Hayes, 37 App. D. C. 169.

National Graduate University v. District of Columbia

346 A.2d 740 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1975

See Jewish War Veterans v. District of Columbia, supra; Congregational Home v. *743 District of Columbia, 92 U.S.App.D.C. 73 , 202 F.2d 808 (1953). … We note that the drafters of the Rules adopted by the Board of Judges for the Tax Division of the Superior Court approved a similar construction of § 47-2403.

Mitchell v. United States

985 A.2d 1125 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 31, 2009

(citing Brown v. Untied States, 590 A.2d 1008, 1020 (D.C.1991)). The trial court’s legal conclusions are reviewed de novo. In re G.E., 879 A.2d 672, 677 (D.C.2005). … Brown v. United States, 934 A.2d 930, 941 (D.C.2007). Only a showing of manifest prejudice will suffice to demonstrate that the trial court abused its discretion in denying a motion for severance. Hammond v.

Watergate West, Inc. v. Barclays Bank, S.A.

759 A.2d 169 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2000

See, e.g., Mennonite Bd. of Missions v. … Sandquist & Snow, Inc. v.

Thomas v. District of Columbia

942 A.2d 645 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 2008

Guzman v. United States, 821 A.2d 895, 897 (D.C.2003). … Brawner v. United, States, 745 A.2d 354, 357 (D.C.2000); Ven-tura v. United States, 927 A.2d 1090 (D.C. 2007).

Parker & Jenkins v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 22, 2021

(Henry) Brown v. United States, 881 A.2d 586, 599 (D.C. 2005) (citing Warren v. United States, 436 A.2d 821, 836 (D.C. 1981)).  34 when the identification was made.” Taylor v. … Brown, 840 A.2d at 89. Both statements give context to Mr.

Metts v. United States

877 A.2d 113 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2005

Lopez v. United States, 801 A.2d 39, 42 (D.C.2002). … Metts and a big brown skin [sic] guy wearing a leather jacket. The men were asked to take the disturbance outside. I went to the door to look out because of the loud talking.

Laumer v. United States

409 A.2d 190 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 5, 1979

[People v. Brown, 26 N.Y.2d 88, 91 , 308 N.Y.S.2d 825, 827 , 257 N.E.2d 16, 17 (1970).] … .); People v. Brown, supra (Bergan, J.). See also the comment of Chief Justice Burger in United States v. Harris, 403 U.S. 573, 584 , 91 S.Ct. 2075 , 29 L.Ed.2d 723 (1971). 9 .

Katkish v. District of Columbia

763 A.2d 703 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2000

See Toy v. … See Brown v. United States, 134 U.S.App.D.C. 269 , 414 F.2d 1165 (D.C.Cir.1969); Coombs v. United States, 399 A.2d 1313 (D.C.1979). Cf. Dent v.

Byrd v. United States

364 A.2d 1215 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1976

In White v. … The prosecutor’s closing argument to the jury contained the following comment: “ * * * Wouldn’t a man without guilty knowledge, when he saw [the] Inspector . . . take out .the brown bag from the cabinet, say, ‘I have never

Coleman v. United States

619 A.2d 40 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1993

(citing Tinsley v. United States, 368 A.2d 531 (D.C.1976); Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11 , 331 F.2d 85 (1964)). … United States v. Montes-Cardenas, 746 F.2d 771, 776 (11th Cir.1984); 11 see also Blunt v.

In re Richardson

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 12, 2022

Sutton v. United States, 140 A.3d 1198, 1205 (D.C. 2016) (quoting Brown v. United States, 795 A.2d 56, 63 (D.C. 2002)). … See Bell v.

Lattimore v. United States

684 A.2d 357 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1996

Payne v. United States, supra, 516 A.2d at 493 (quoting Curley v. United States, 81 U.S.App. D.C. 389, 392-93, 160 F.2d 229, 232-33 , cert. denied, 331 U.S. 837 , 67 S.Ct. 1511 , 91 L.Ed. 1850 (1947)); see also Brown v. … Groomes v.

Hill v. District of Columbia

345 A.2d 867 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 1975

See, e. g., Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 338 A.2d 437 (1975); Miller v. Spencer, D.C.App., 330 A.2d 250 (1974). … See, e. g., Maier v. Ketchikan, 403 P.2d 34 (Alas.1965) ; Colorado Springs v. Colburn, 102 *870 Colo. 483, 81 P.2d 397 (1938). Others have declined to do so. See, e. g., Waite v.

Vernice Bowles v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

121 A.3d 1264 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 6, 2015

The DOES Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) determined that Bowles suffered the 10% PPD; the DOES Compensation Review Board (“CRB”) affirmed. … SEC v. Chenery Corp. (“Chenery I”), 318 U.S. 80 (1943); SEC v. Chenery Corp. (“Chenery II”), 332 U.S. 194 (1947).

Butler v. United States

836 A.2d 570 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2003

Maske v. United States, 785 A.2d 687, 693 (D.C. 2001). … This aspect of this case has been considered by the Board on Professional Responsibility, and upon recommendation of the Board, this court disbarred appellant’s former lawyer, by consent, pursuant to D.C. Bar R.