Case law

Wilson v. United States

568 A.2d 817 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 19, 1990

Bartley v. United States, 530 A.2d 692, 697 (D.C.1987) (citations omitted). As explained in United States v. … WMATA is a creature of an interstate compact in which the elected representatives of the three jurisdictions comprise its board of directors. See WMATA Compact, §§ 5 & 8.

Purcell v. Thomas

28 A.3d 1138 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 2011

Weaver v. … Young & Simon, Inc. v.

Jones v. Jones

20 App. D.C. 38 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 6, 1902

Hamilton — we did not dream of talcing any aprons, but we did beat her of 3 days board, & sold my little satchel to- a woman for $2; she now sees where we got the best of her, and she is telling a story on us. … See also Timmings v. Timmings, 3 Hag. Eccl. Rep. 16; Ribet v. Ribet, 39 Ala. 348 ; Peck v. Peck, 44 Hun (N. Y.), 290. The decree below should be affirmed, and it is so ordered. Decree affirmed.

In Re DAJ

694 A.2d 860 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 1, 1997

See Little v. United States, 665 A.2d 977, 980 (D.C.1995). Rather, we have repeatedly invoked the principle set forth in Miller v. … Peay v. United States, 597 A.2d 1318, 1320 (D.C.1991) (en *865 banc) (citation omitted). Moreover, "[w]e must accept the trial judge's findings of evidentiary fact and his resolution of conflicting testimony." Brown v.

In Re Richardson

759 A.2d 649 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2000

Ko v. … Servs. v.

Government Employees Insurance v. Group Hospitalization Medical Services, Inc.

602 A.2d 1083 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 14, 1992

See Taylor v. … Montgomery County Board of Education, 295 Md. 442 , 456 A.2d 894 (1983) (declining to adopt comparative negligence standard). 2 .

In re M.M.D.

662 A.2d 837 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 1995

Brown v. United States, 66 A.2d 491, 493 (D.C.1949). … United States v. Brown, 333 U.S. 18, 25-26 , 68 S.Ct. 376, 380 , 92 L.Ed. 442 (1948) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).

United States v. Dockery

294 A.2d 158 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1972

See Communist Party of United States v. Subversive Activities Control Board, 102 U.S.App.D.C. 395 , 254 F.2d 314 (1958), aff’d on other grounds, 367 U.S. 1 , 81 S.Ct. 1357 , 6 L.Ed.2d 625 (1961). See also NLRB v. … V, 1972). .

Hawk v. D.C. DOES

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 2021

HAWK, PETITIONER, v. … Hawk appealed the ALJ’s decision in this case to the Compensation Review Board (CRB), which affirmed. The CRB agreed with the ALJ’s reliance upon LaRose.

Chase v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

804 A.2d 1119 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 15, 2002

Butler v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Empl. Servs., 598 A.2d 733, 735 (D.C.1991). … As we have done previously, see Washington Times v. District of Columbia Dep't of Empl.

McBride v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 5, 2021

(quoting Allen v. … Cf., e.g., Brown v.

Williams v. United States

385 A.2d 760 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 25, 1978

See Manson v. Brathwaite, 97 S.Ct. 2243 (1977). See also Fields v. … I note that the Supreme Court has avoided extending the “totality of circumstances” standard across the board in evaluating exclusionary rules. See Moore v.

JEFFREY BOWSER v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, and CLARK CONSTRUCTION, LLC, INTERVENORS.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 2016

United States Gypsum Co. v. Pendleton, 340 P.2d 467, 468 (Okla. 1959). … Simmons v. Workers’ Comp. Appeal Bd., 96 A.3d 1143, 1149 (Pa. Commw.

O'CONNOR v. United States

399 A.2d 21 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 13, 1979

Bishop v. United States, 71 U.S.App.D.C. 132 , 135, 107 F.2d 297, 301 (1939); Hamilton v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 382, 385 (1905). In Bishop v. … Brown v. United States, D.C.App., 244 A.2d 487, 490 (1968). Although there are no ironclad rules for determining when the denial of a continuance is so arbitrary as to deny due process, Ungar v.

Olafisoye v. United States

857 A.2d 1078 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 2004

See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 289 A.2d 891, 892-893 (D.C.1972). Both the D.C. Code and the Superior Court Criminal Rules require that motions to suppress be filed before trial. See D.C. … See New York v.

Washington v. United States

499 A.2d 95 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1985

Compare United States v. … See Sherer v. United States, 470 A.2d 732, 737 (D.C.1983), ce rt. denied, — U.S. -, 105 S.Ct. 325 , 83 L.Ed.2d 262 (1984); Brown v. United States, 409 A.2d 1093, 1099 (D.C.1979).

Lloyd v. United States

64 A.3d 405 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 24, 2013

The court may permit the introduction or use of a demonstrative aid “if it is ‘sufficiently explanatory or illustrative of relevant testimony in the case to be of potential help to the trier of fact.’ ” Brown v. … French v.

Hamilton v. Rathbone

9 App. D.C. 48 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 1, 1896

Goodman v. Winter, 64 Ala. 410 ; France v. Haynes, 67 Iowa, 139 ; Schench v. Sautter, 73 Mo. 46 ; Moore v. Hill, 85 N. C. 218 . … Rel., Secs. 444, 446; Pitcher v. Laycock, 7 Ind. 398 ; Cresinger v. Welch, 15 Ohio, 156 ; Green v. Green, 69 N. Y. 553 ; Bedinger v. Wharton, 27 Gratt. 857 . In the case of Russ v.

Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co. v. Public Service Commission

498 A.2d 1167 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 27, 1985

FPC v. Hope Natural Gas Co., supra, 320 U.S. at 602 , 64 S.Ct. at 287 ; see D.C. Telephone Answering Service Committee v. Public Service Commission, supra, 476 A.2d at 1119; People’s Counsel v. … From the consumer standpoint, the upper boundary cannot be so high that the rate would be classified as ‘exorbitant.’ ’’ Metropolitan Washington Board of Trade v.

Tanaka v. Sheehan

589 A.2d 391 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 12, 1991

Preston v. … Phelps, 269 Ky. 493, 496 , 107 S.W.2d 288, 290 (1937); Brown v. Gaskins, 284 S.C. 30, 32 , 324 S.E.2d 639, 640 (Ct.App.1984); Wykoff v. Barton, 646 P.2d 756, 758 (Utah 1982). 7 .