Case law

Johnson v. D.C. Pub. Sch.

191 A.3d 293 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 2018

In our view, the record indisputably establishes that Mr. Johnson did not voluntarily retire. Rather, he was involuntarily separated and was granted benefits accordingly. … Johnson as being precluded from reliance on that provision to support his clearly articulated contention that he did not voluntarily retire.

Haidak v. Corso

841 A.2d 316 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 2004

The court was also clearly concerned with the orderliness and efficiency of the trial. Dr. Hurwitz initially testified on July 23, and, on July 26, Dr. Haidak requested permission to recall him. Dr. … You’re going to have to take him down the rest of the road here to qualify him. You’ve not done that....

Kelsey v. Ray

719 A.2d 1248 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 1998

Contrary to the plaintiffs’ contention that the Bible Way Church’s liability could be established by “neutral principles of law” (see Jones v. … See Bible Way Church, 680 A.2d at 427 (noting cases raising possibility of a fraud or collusion exception to church immunity from civil suit). 6 .

Shepherd Park Citizens Ass'n v. General Cinema Beverages of Washington, D.C., Inc.

584 A.2d 20 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1990

Nor did the District’s failure to employ use immunity, see D.C.Code § 28-4505(g)(7), other than for a single witness cast doubt on the settlement in view of the pre-complaint interviews the District had held with some company … Although the antitrust statute is of recent origin, there was no suggestion that counsel for the District of Columbia was not qualified to handle substantial litigation. Further, there was no suggestion of collusion.

Thomas v. United States

619 A.2d 20 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1992

Such an appeal was clearly improper. As we said in Powell : “The function of the jury is to determine the facts based on evidence presented. … Based on his demonstrated experience and knowledge, Detective Brenner qualified as an expert.

JEROME PROCTOR, JR. v. UNITED STATES

156 A.3d 102 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017

The trial court qualified Officer Michael Jewell as “an expert in the distribution, use and pricing of marijuana in the District of Columbia and in the relationship between guns in (sic) the drug trade in the District of … That testimony is quite “speculative,” see Schools, supra, 84 A.3d at 512 , in the factual context of this case, and does not clearly prove Mr.

Wood v. United States

498 A.2d 1140 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 23, 1985

The evidence presented at the suppression hearing clearly established that the arresting officer had probable cause to believe appellant was soliciting for prostitution. … Special Order 82-29A simply lists the criteria established by the United States Attorney’s Office in determining whether certain conduct warrants prosecution.

District of Columbia v. White

442 A.2d 159 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 19, 1982

Due to the lack of evidence establishing an appropriate standard of care for training the detective and establishing a breach of that standard by police supervisory officials, we find there was insufficient evidence upon … However, we find the court’s submission of this issue to the jury clearly erroneous in light of the lack of expert or other testimony establishing a standard from which the jury could consider an alleged deviation. 17 The

In re C. A. P.

356 A.2d 335 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 13, 1976

The court resists the government’s efforts to lump these clearly distinguishable types of cases within subsection (B) of the neglect statute. … Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479, 496 , 85 S.Ct. 1678 , 14 L.Ed.2d 510 (1965) (Goldberg, J., concurring). 28 We recognize, of course, that the parent-child relationship is not totally immune from governmental interference.

Stagecrafters Club, Inc. v. District of Columbia

89 A.2d 876 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 17, 1952

Their knowledge, gained from experience, of the taste of whisky qualified the officers to testify that the liquid which they bought and tasted was in fact whisky or intoxicating liquor. Lewinsohn v. … cannot decide appeals on statements contained in briefs of counsel, but must depend upon the record officially certified to us, by the trial court. 8 Careful study of the record satisfies us that appellants have failed to establish

Barry v. Little

669 A.2d 115 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 18, 1995

As a result, plaintiffs assert, many physicians diagnosed an incapacity for patients who would have qualified as disabled. This argument, however, overlooks a critical fact. … The trial court’s refusal to order the District to do so was clearly a reasonable exercise of its equitable powers. VII.

Lewis v. Washington Hospital Center

77 A.3d 378 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 3, 2013

That legislative history clearly indicates that the District of Columbia Council understood § 16-2804(b) broadly, “permitting] waiver of [§ 16-2802’s notice] requirement by the court upon the finding of a good faith effort … We therefore conclude that the hospital has failed to establish that the trial court *383 abused its discretion by finding that a waiver of the notice requirement was in the interests of justice in the circumstances of this

Simmons v. United States

945 A.2d 1183 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2008

The judge responded that appellant’s counsel would have to establish whether the declarant “was distressed under the excitement” of the shooting. … excited utterance is deferential, for the inquiry is fact-specific and committed in the first instance to the discretionary judgment of the trial judge. 2 We have said that we will reverse such a ruling “only if [it] is clearly

Melvin Andrade v. United States

88 A.3d 134 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2014

For example, after establishing that Mr. Andrade did not know and had not spoken with Juan Carlos Rodriguez or Mr. … Under District law, a “communication-impaired person,” including “a non-English or limited-English speaking person,” is entitled to a “qualified interpreter.” D.C. Code § 2-1902 (a) (2012 Repl.); D.C.

Ramey v. Foxhall Urology, Chartered

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 24, 2025

Candida, Fibromyalgia, . . . and possibly some larger auto-immune disease.” A medical report dated April 10, 2010, and created with Ms. … This language clearly evokes the familiar plausibility standard required to survive a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim. See Ashcroft v.

District of Columbia v. Zukerberg

880 A.2d 276 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 11, 2005

Gordon was qualified as an expert on aquatics, aquatic safety, operation of municipal swimming pools and use of three-meter diving boards in recreational swimming facilities open to the public. … Zukerberg argues that, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the plaintiff at trial, the evidence at trial “clearly permitted” the jury to conclude that the District’s negligence was a proximate cause of Jacob

Jordan v. United States

722 A.2d 1257 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 30, 1998

Id. at 6; see also id. at 7 (the evidence is admissible “so long as the balancing of probative value versus prejudice does not clearly favor exclusion”). … Johnson refused to testify at trial even though granted use immunity. 4 .Q_Was there a time on June 9th and June 10th of 1992 where you were protecting Carlos Jordan from Michael Johnson? A.

Bannum, Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

894 A.2d 423 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2006

Faced with this and other evidence, the BZA quite reasonably concluded: Clearly Bannum did not intend its use to be temporary. … This was to be a permanent facility established in contravention of the Zoning Regulations.

In Re FNB

706 A.2d 28 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1998

On October 25, 1990, A.H.B. signed a stipulation in which she admitted that her residence was not a safe, clean, and proper living environment for F.N.B., that she failed to keep current with immunizations for the child, … At the hearing, the mother's principal efforts were directed at establishing her present ability to care for F.N.B.

Taylor v. United States

603 A.2d 451 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1992

Taylor also argues that his counsel should have asked the court to grant Williams use immunity in order to compel him to testify. … I can’t clearly remember exactly what all Marvin said, but many times they be arguing, saying they were telling this and that.