Case law

Capital Holding Corp. v. District of Columbia

374 A.2d 573 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1977

with the holding corporation, that the board was vested with autonomy, and regarded the advice and resolutions emanating from Capital as suggestions rather than binding instructions. … Western Union Telegraph Co. v. Kansas, 216 U.S. 1 , 30 S.Ct. 190 , 54 L.Ed. 355 ; International Paper Co. v.

Scott v. Scott

137 A.2d 722 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 1958

Holt v. Holt, 1935, 64 App.D.C. 280 , 77 F.2d 538 . 2 .See Underwood v. Underwood, 1921, 50 App.D.C. 323, 324 , 271 F. 553, 554 . 3 . See annotation, 19 A.L.R.2d 1430 , 1459-1460. 4 . … See Judge Frank’s discussion of the effect of “demeanor evidence” in National Labor Relations Board v. Dinion Coil Co., 2 Cir., 1952, 201 F.2d 484 .

United States v. Bradford

344 A.2d 208 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 26, 1975

Driscoll v. United States, 356 F.2d 324, 332 (1st Cir. 1966) ; United States v. Bachman, 164 F.Supp. 898, 900 (D.D.C.1958) ; Hotchkiss v. District of Columbia, 44 U.S.App.D.C. 73 (1915). 3 . Brown v. … People v. White, 41 Mich.App. 370 , 200 N.W.2d 326, 329-31 (1972), aff’d, 390 Mich. 245 , 212 N.W.2d 222 (1973) ; State v. Brown, 262 Or. 442 , 497 P.2d 1191, 1193-99 (1972) (en banc) ; cf. Harris v.

Veney v. United States

738 A.2d 1185 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 2, 1999

See also Winkler v. … See, e.g., Fitzgerald v.

Harco, Inc. v. Greenville Steel and Foundry Company

112 A.2d 920 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1955

Foster-Milburn Co. v. Knight, 2 Cir., 181 F.2d 949 . In Phillips v. … Board of Supervisors of Rockland County v. Knickerbocker Ice Co., 2 Cir., 80 F.2d 248 . Appeal dismissed. 4 .

Marinopoliski v. Irish

445 A.2d 339 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 28, 1982

See Howard v. Safeway Stores, Inc., supra; Napier v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C.App., 215 A.2d 479 (1966); Orum v. Safeway Stores, Inc., D.C.Mun.App., 138 A.2d 665 (1958). … See Jones v.

Zeppos v. Lewis

107 A.2d 661 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 1954

Neither the original rent act nor any of the amendatory acts used the term “lodging house” although apartments, hotels, rooming and boarding-houses were specifically mentioned. … Grady v. Prewitt, D.C.Mun.App., 99 A.2d 755 . . Wilner v. Vartanian, D.C.Mun.App., 55 A.2d 88 . . Code 1951, '§ 45-1602(3) (a)'. . Code 1951, § 45-1602(5) (a). . Code 1951, Supp. II, § 45-1611 (a). .

Henderson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2022

Since we perceive no error at all, the point is moot. 17 Brown v. United States, 983 A.2d 1023, 1027 (D.C. 2009) (quoting Florida v. … See, e.g., United States v.

Vicki Bagley Realty, Inc. v. Laufer

482 A.2d 359 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 24, 1984

Jay v. General Realties Co., 49 A.2d 752, 755 (D.C.1946); accord, e.g., Urban Investments, Inc. v. Branham, 464 A.2d 93, 96 (D.C.1983); Ellis v. Morgan, 65 A.2d 797 (D.C.1949); Brown v. … It encompasses an obligation to inform the principal of every development affecting his interest, Urban Investments, Inc. v. Branham, supra, 464 A.2d at 96 ; Jay v. General Realties Co., supra, 49 A.2d at 755 ; Brown v.

Cullen v. United States

886 A.2d 870 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 17, 2005

North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 , 89 S.Ct. 2072 , 23 L.Ed.2d 656 (1969). A conviction must be vacated if there are duplicate convictions for the same offense. Brown v. … See State v.

Capital Linoleum Co. v. Savage

91 A.2d 564 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1952

Allen v. Chas. E. Howe Co., 261 Mass. 355 , 158 N.E. 767 ; Castelli v. Burns, 156 App.Div. 200 , 140 N.Y.S. 1057 ; sec also Brilliant v. Silk, 290 Mass. 537, 195 N.E. 737 . … United States Shipping Board E. F. C. v. Sherman & Ellis, 208 Ala. 83 , 93 So. 834 . 5 .

Maria Ramos v. DC DOES

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 28, 2020

We review the CRB’s final order, mindful that “we cannot ignore the compensation order which is the subject of the Board’s review.” Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. … Battle v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 176 A.3d 129 (D.C. 2018).

Sterling v. United States

515 A.2d 433 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 1986

Any *435 change must come from the Parole Board. On May 9 the court entered an order summarily denying appellant’s motion to reduce sentence. … Lawrence v. United States, 488 A.2d 923, 924 (D.C.1985) (citations omitted).

Gary v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

723 A.2d 1205 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1998

See Spartin v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Services, 584 A.2d 564 (D.C.1990). In “appropriate circumstances,” an emotional injury may be compensable under the statute. Charles P. Young Co. v. … Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, 500 A.2d 987, 992 (D.C.1985) (“[w]e must uphold the Board’s decision so long as it is supported by substantial evidence, even though there may also be substantial evidence to support a contrary

Washington v. United States

8 A.3d 1234 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 18, 2010

Although the government correctly notes that § 24-304(a) is "a broad grant of authority" to the trial court to terminate and revoke probation, Brown v. … See, e.g., Jones v.

Dunn v. Shane

195 A.2d 409 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 20, 1963

Patrick v. Bowman, 149 U.S. 411 , 13 S.Ct. 811 , 37 L.Ed. 790 (1893); National Labor Relations Board v. … Sokol v. Hill, 310 S.W.2d 19 (Mo.App.1958); Wilkie v. Banse, 166 Neb. 138 , 88 N.W.2d 181 (1958); Dobson & Johnson, Inc. v.

Freeman v. United States

201 A.2d 22 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 4, 1964

He next pulled out the table drawer • and saw • pinned underneath the left-hand side of the table a brown envelope which he instructed appellant to remove. … On these facts appellant contends that Blok v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 70 A.2d 55 (1949), affirmed 88 U.S.App.D.C. 326 , 188 F.2d 1019 (1951), is controlling and that the evidence should have been suppressed.

Atwater v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs

566 A.2d 462 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1989

The Report notes that the enforcement mechanisms in the Act will not be duplica-tive of present law when the trade practice involves professions licensed or supervised by existing boards and commissions, because [t]he boards … As the court noted in Johnson v. Cumis Ins.

Fountain v. Kelly

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

Relying on Winters v. … Cannon v.

United States v. Hamid

461 A.2d 1043 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 2, 1983

Brown v. United States, 411 A.2d 631, 633 (D.C.1980) (per curiam); McDaniels v. United States, 385 A.2d 180, 182 (D.C.1978) (per curiam). … Brown appeared to go even further in suggesting that we shared the federal courts’ view: We have construed the Rule 35 filing deadlines strictly, see McDaniels v.