Case law

Dorsey v. District of Columbia

917 A.2d 639 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 15, 2007

City Council members with immunity from lawsuits ... for conduct undertaken in their legislative capacities.” Dominion Cogen, 878 F.Supp. at 262 (construing the D.C. statute). Ms. … Schwartz’s support for Bill 15-141 and her “refusal” to repeal 18 DCMR § 1040 clearly fall within the scope of her legislative duties.

Battle v. Thornton

646 A.2d 315 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 1994

“The plaintiff bears the burden of presenting evidence “which establishes the applicable standard of care, demonstrates that this standard has been violated, and develops a causal relationship between the violation and the … States, 515 A.2d 428, 430 (D.C.1986) (introduction of incompetent or irrelevant evidence by a party opens door to admission of otherwise inadmissible evidence). 12 Appellants proceeded to introduce evidence at trial that clearly

Wallace & Layne v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2026

It was noted that the forensic experts, who were qualified without objection, indicated that Mr. … We see sufficient evidence in the record to establish Mr. Wallace’s intent to distribute crack cocaine. Mr.

Wilson v. United States

995 A.2d 174 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 6, 2010

F.2d 1021, 1026 (1st Cir.1988) (stating that disqualification is proper where there is a direct link between the clients of an attorney or evidence that one client has information about another client, such as where an immunized … As appellant notes, "erroneous deprivation of the right to counsel of choice, with consequences that are necessarily unquantifiable and indeterminate, unquestionably qualifies as structural error,” making it "unnecessary

Keels v. United States

785 A.2d 672 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 21, 2001

certain conduct beyond a reasonable doubt serves a dual purpose — to convict that offender of the crime and to establish the qualifying factor. … It is quite another matter, however, for the sentencing judge to believe, as she did in this case, that the offender’s eligibility for LWOP has been established on multiple *687 statutory grounds when only one of those qualifying

Doepel v. United States

434 A.2d 449 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 13, 1981

Ever since 1880, when a statute qualifying only white people for jury duty was struck down as unconstitutional, Strauder v. … The opinion made only one exception to the rule that peremptory challenges by the prosecutor, irrespective of their impact on the final jury selection, are immune from review.

Gilbert v. Miodovnik

990 A.2d 983 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 18, 2010

Miodovnik and Nurse-Midwife Alexander, only the doctor was qualified to perform a cesarean section, she was no less qualified than he to speak with the patient and arrange for the surgery. Nor was Dr. … Miodovnik acknowledged that "it's clearly said, by ACOG, that if you have two cesarean sections without vaginal delivery, it is contraindicated of VBAC.” .

Committee for Voluntary Prayer v. Wimberly

704 A.2d 1199 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1997

Despite the “saving” language set forth in sections 3 and 4 of the proposed prayer initiative, we agree with the trial court that section 2 clearly conflicts with decisions of the Supreme Court interpreting the establishment … practice, subject to the exemptions in § l-2503(b), for an educational institution: (1) To deny, restrict, or to abridge or condition the use of, or access to, any of its facilities and services to any person otherwise qualified

Adams v. District Unemployment Compensation Board

414 A.2d 830 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 1980

Shortly after midnight on that night, the Pressmen damaged the printing machinery, went out on strike, and established a picket line outside the Post building. … Alternatively, the Board found that the petitioners’ union was “participating in or directly interested in the labor dispute” between the Post and the Pressmen, and consequently, petitioners could not qualify for benefits

Barrett v. Covington & Burling LLP

979 A.2d 1239 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 10, 2009

In order to establish a prima facie case of an unlawful termination under the DCHRA, a plaintiff ... must demonstrate (1) that [s]he was a member of a protected class, (2) that [s]he was qualified for the job from which [ … These communications clearly referred to the possibility of termination, but they also left open the prospect that Ms. Barrett would return to work. The parties were in a negotiating posture.

Boorstein v. Douglas

52 A.2d 492 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 5, 1947

Appellant, if she would succeed here, must establish error affirmatively. Cliquot’s Champagne, 3 Wall. 114, 140 , 18 L.Ed. 116 ; Sturges v. … Justice Hughes, said: “Manifestly, the judgment cannot be set aside' because of this ruling, for it does not appear what testimony the witness was expected to give, or that he was qualified to give any.” Stafford v.

Hickey v. BOMERS

28 A.3d 1119 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2011

as a discharged employee, she did not qualify for benefits because she had been discharged for misconduct. … He contends that the ALJ’s rulings that Bom-ers is eligible and qualified to receive unemployment benefits must be reversed.

Matter of Herman

619 A.2d 958 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1993

Goetcheus clearly failed to follow the Ervin Act's requirements in causing the involuntary emergency hospitalization of Ms. Herman. Section 521 provides that emergency hospitalization of Ms. … Herman's physician under § 521, the doctor clearly failed to base her application for emergency hospitalization on "personal observation and examination of [Ms. Herman]" as required by § 582(b).

Johnson v. United States

364 A.2d 1198 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 5, 1976

This statement establishes beyond doubt that the .trial court did consider Sherri's intellectual capacity in determining that she was a competent witness. … We next consider appellant’s contention that Sherri was not intelligent enough to qualify as a competent witness.

Gause v. United States

959 A.2d 671 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 30, 2008

Several other officers established a perimeter around the creek bed, and they began to search for the robbers. … If a prima facie showing is made, the government may justify its jury selection procedures "by demonstrating that they clearly advance 'a significant state interest.’ ” Carle v.

Reyes v. United States

933 A.2d 785 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2007

It is well-established that a statement is admissible under the spontaneous utterance exception to the hearsay rule where the party offering the statement establishes: 1) the presence of a startling event which caused ■& … Clearly, the evidence regarding the UUV offense was simple and discrete from the other evidence presented at trial. See Gooch v.

Bradley v. District of Columbia

20 App. D.C. 169 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 20, 1902

In the case at bar, moreover, the recital is, that the witness “ had given the subject of the abatement of smoke examination, and was qualified to speak from his experience in reference to the matter.” … The conditions which would justify such an exercise of the judicial power of review must be clearly established.

Sharps and Jordan v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 11, 2021

And it in no way clearly establishes authority to detain, incarcerate, or otherwise infringe the liberty interests of people beyond clearly established time limits in other statutes. … Anna Gross & Clive Cookson, Brazil Virus Variant Found to Evade Natural Immunity, Fin.

Bell v. Weinstock, Friedman & Friedman, PA

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 5, 2025

We do not doubt that lawyers may engage in some debt-collection activities for which they do not need a law license and that such activities, if they do not qualify as the “professional endeavors” of lawyers, would not … The agreement also establishes that an account can be recalled in the middle of litigation.

Ceco Corp. v. Coleman

441 A.2d 940 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 27, 1982

First, Ceco contends that it was entitled to a directed verdict because the evidence established that it was the negligence of Tompkins, Coleman’s employer, which proximately caused his injury. … To fulfill this purpose, more than a general objection must be noted; the grounds of the objection must be “called to the attention of the trial court in such manner as to clearly advise it as to the question of law involved