Case law

Hairston v. United States

905 A.2d 765 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2006

[United States v.] Brown, 737 A.2d [1016,] 1021[ (D.C.1999) ] (citing [Rhode Island v.} Innis, 446 U.S. [291,] 299, 100 S.Ct. 1682 , 64 L.Ed.2d 297 [(1980)]). … Ready v. United States, 620 A.2d 233,234 (D.C.1993) (citing Gibson v. United States, 388 A.2d 1214, 1216-17 (D.C.1978)).

Kleiboemer v. District of Columbia

466 A.2d 846 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 7, 1983

Kleiboemer v. District of Columbia, 458 A.2d 731, 732 (D.C.1983). … San Jose v. Superior Court of Santa Clara County, 12 Cal.3d 447 , 115 Cal.Rptr. 797 , 525 P.2d 701 (1974); Lattin v. Franchise Tax Board, 75 Cal.App.3d 377 , 142 Cal.Rptr. 130 (1977).

In re D.R.J.

734 A.2d 162 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 15, 1999

R. 109(c), the Superior Court Board of Judges (and its Rules Committee) took no apparent position on the issue. … See, e.g., United States v. King, 849 F.2d 485, 488 (11th Cir.1988); United States v. Carbone, 793 F.2d 559, 560 (3d Cir.1986); United States v. Martir, 782 F.2d 1141, 1144 (2d Cir.1986); United States v.

Television Capital Corp. of Mobile v. Paxson Communications Corp.

894 A.2d 461 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2006

Griva v. … See Metropolitan Baptist Church v.

School Street Associates Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia

728 A.2d 575 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 25, 1999

these terms are used in accordance with this standard accounting meaning. 10 Thus, on its face and in accord with the natural reading of its language, the statute appears to provide the NOL deduction consistently across the board … United States v.

Grant v. District of Columbia

908 A.2d 1173 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 12, 2006

“To trigger due process protection in the area of public employment, an employee must ‘have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.’ ” Leonard, 794 A.2d at 624 (quoting Board of Regents v. … Mosrie v.

Fortune v. United States

59 A.3d 949 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 17, 2013

Arthur v. United States, 986 A.2d 398, 413 (D.C.2009); see also Barrows v. … Brown v. United States, 627 A.2d 499, 508 (D.C.1993) (“We have repeatedly held that a defendant may not take one position at trial and a contradictory position on appeal.”). When the jury later found Mr.

United States v. Tyler

376 A.2d 798 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 13, 1977

United States v. Shorter, D.C.App., 343 A.2d 569 (1975); United States v. Battle, 166 U.S.App.D.C. 396 , 510 F.2d 776 (1975); United States v. Brown, 155 U.S.App.D.C. 402 , 478 F.2d 606 (1973); Rucker v. … McDonald v. United States, supra; Durham v. United States, supra. This court in its recent opinion in Bethea v.

Bufford v. District of Columbia Public Schools

611 A.2d 519 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 12, 1992

In Barnett v. … District of Columbia Board of Education ... shall issue rules and regulations providing procedures for the prompt handling of grievances of employees and applicants for employment.

Shorter v. United States

792 A.2d 228 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2001

See Brown v. United States, 740 A.2d 533, 536 (D.C.1999). … See Hammon v.

Kamerow v. DC RENTAL HOUSING COM'N

891 A.2d 253 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 2, 2006

See Mullin v. District of Columbia Rental Hous. … Programs, 824 F.2d 94 , 95-96 (1987) (Board decision remanding an agency case to an administrative law judge for a determination of damages where a statutory issue had been resolved was not a final order).

Turner v. United States

684 A.2d 313 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1996

United States, 598 A.2d 386, 393 (D.C.1991) (en banc); Robinson v. United States, 501 A.2d 1273, 1277 (D.C.1985); Doepel v. … United States, 445 U.S. 684, 691-95 , 100 S.Ct. 1432, 1437-40 , 63 L.Ed.2d 715 (1980) ("two punishments could not be imposed because rape and felony murder predicated on the rape were the 'same offense' ”); Brown v.

Johnson v. Martin

567 A.2d 1299 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 1989

Bank of Marvell, 188 Ark. 330, 331-33 , 65 S.W.2d 549, 550 (1933); Board of County Commissioners v. … Vogel v.

DC Dept. of Public Works v. DC Office of Human Rights & Jeffrey Dickerson

195 A.3d 483 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2018

[erroneous] framing of the issues” by the Compensation Review Board in its ruling on appeal); Bentt v. … See Kennedy v.

Dyson v. United States

848 A.2d 603 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 6, 2004

Smith v. United States, 665 A.2d 962, 967 (D.C.1995) (citations omitted). Whether or not a particular hearsay exception applies to certain statements is a question of law which we review de novo. See Brown v. … See Crisafi v.

CHERYL STEELE v. S. MICAH SALB

93 A.3d 1277 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2014

The EEOC referred Steele’s claim to the United States Merit Protection Board (“MPB”) for adjudication. … Pennsylvania State Police v. Suders, 542 U.S. 129, 147 (2004); see Atlantic Richfield Co. v.

Hinton v. United States

951 A.2d 773 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2008

Al-Mahdi v. … See, e.g., Brown v. United States, 627 A.2d499, 508 (D.C.1993) ("We have repeatedly held that a defendant may not take one position at trial and a contradictory position on appeal.”) (citations omitted). 22 .

BERNARD FLEMING v. UNITED STATES

148 A.3d 1175 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2016

See McCray v. United States, 133 A.3d 205, 223-26 (D.C. 2016); Blaine v. United States, 18 A.3d 766, 768 (D.C. 2011). . See Matthews v. … Peoples was found guilty only of carrying a pistol outside the home or business and of tampering with physical evidence. .See Brown v.

Murray v. Motorola, Inc.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2025

Hechinger Co. v. … See Weisgram v.

Washington Post Co. v. Minority Business Opportunity Commission

560 A.2d 517 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 1989

Van Bourg, Allen, Weinberg & Roger v. … The withheld documents apparently consisted primarily of letters from clients, customers, and vendors, as well as correspondence with District of Columbia agencies and, in one case, with minutes of a meeting of the Board