Case law

District of Columbia Housing Authority v. District of Columbia Office of Human Rights

881 A.2d 600 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 25, 2005

However, there was substantial evidence in the record that Brummell was qualified. … party of its waiver under other circumstances: notably, where the party had no opportunity to raise its claim before the agency, in which case remand may be appropriate, and perhaps also (but rarely) where it truly and clearly

Washington Gas Light Co. v. Lansden

9 App. D.C. 508 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 9, 1896

If this be not so, a man might become a libeller with immunity. … The court, in our opinion, was clearly right in rejecting this prayer.

Hedgepeth v. Whitman Walker Clinic

22 A.3d 789 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 30, 2011

well-being, or questions involving health, independence and conditions affecting personal dignity that might implicate a ward’s emotional well-being), and relevant policy considerations, such as the need to have a pool of qualified … caused serious emotional distress to the plaintiff, would unfairly allow the negligent actor to be immunized from liability at the expense of the injured person.

Hutchison Bros. Excavating Co. v. District of Columbia

511 A.2d 3 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 11, 1986

Thus, we will abide by the trial court's factual findings unless they are “clearly erroneous,” Rock Creek-Woodner Ltd. v. District of Columbia, 466 A.2d 857, 859 (D.C.1983); District of Columbia v. … As an importer of motor vehicle fuel, appellant never expressly qualified for the now-repealed exemption.

United States ex rel. Frizzell v. Newman

42 App. D.C. 78 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 6, 1914

The petition was supported by affidavits and other evidence establishing probable cause sufficiently to warrant the court in issuing the writ. … As was so clearly pointed out by the Minnesota court in the case of State ex rel. Dowdall v. Dahl, 69 Minn. 108 , 11 N.

Hunt v. Russ

18 D.C. 527 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 4, 1890

The executor, who is the son-in-law of the deceased, qualified and took possession of the personal property, but it was found to be very trifling, not exceeding the sum of $34.50. … The auditor was clearly wrong. The note should have been proved by the usual proof introduced where such instruments are sought to be established, viz., proof of handwriting, etc.

Bell v. Jones

523 A.2d 982 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 14, 1987

To the extent that this presumption has been overcome in the instant case, there is clearly no prejudice and hence no basis for reversal. … Hansen’s testimony failed in three respects to establish the appropriate standard of care for surveyors. First, he argues that Hansen was not qualified to testify at all about the applicable standard of care.

IN RE PETITION OF T.G.M. & T.C.M.,J.S.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 9, 2017

“puts his own needs before his children’s needs” and “clearly demonstrate[s] that he has consistently failed to make the right choices [or] exercise appropriate judgment [and that he] clearly lacks the insight as to how … Under these circumstances, J.S. cannot establish that he was prejudiced by Judge Arthur allowing the Ms to put on a rebuttal case.

Bansda v. Wheeler

995 A.2d 189 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 13, 2010

There is no basis for a refund to Bansda for the household appliances, as they were clearly awarded to her. … As noted earlier, a motion to reconsider will qualify under that rule if it alleges mistakes of fact.

Jones & Associates, Inc. v. District of Columbia

642 A.2d 130 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 26, 1994

The Secretary has adopted two alternative tests for determining whether an employee qualifies for the administrative exemption, a “short test” and a “long test.” See 29 C.F.R. § 541.2 (1993). … Jones makes no claim in the present case that the trial judge’s factual findings were clearly erroneous.

Christian v. Bruno

247 A.2d 54 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 1968

This independent duty clearly includes perfecting service on all persons named as defendants in a suit, for to hold otherwise would be to immunize a party from a duty to diligently prosecute when, by adding a nonresident … This court reversed, holding that the unexplained failure to bring the case to trial against the wife, or to make any effort to serve the husband, for a period of seventeen months established lack of due diligence as a matter

Deneal v. United States

551 A.2d 1312 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 14, 1988

United States, 362 A.2d 706 (D.C.1976) (error must be so clearly prejudicial to appellant’s rights as to jeopardize the very fairness and integrity of trial). We discern no such error. … Baril, 127 Vt. 394, 400 , 250 A.2d 732, 736 (1969) (questioning seeking to establish bias link between officer’s motivation for making arrest and criterion for promotion prohibited); but see Haeger v.

Thomas v. United States

978 A.2d 1211 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 27, 2009

The suspect credibility of such accusations is well-established. See, e.g., Lilly v. … But the recantation falls short of establishing that the court clearly erred.

Lomax v. Spriggs

404 A.2d 943 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 1979

Through 1967, life of a judgment of the United States District Court and its predecessor clearly was twelve years from when “execution might first be issued thereon,” regardless of recordation. … Therefore, the twelve-year life prescription regarding a federal court judgment, which clearly existed from the formation of the District through 1967, continues in force today.

Burgess v. United States

786 A.2d 561 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 2001

The questions served to explain why she had not testified and helped to establish the events leading up to and following Pass’s death. … On cross-examination, defense counsel attempted to establish that Cloyd owned both a .22 pistol and a revolver.

Auxier v. Kraisel

466 A.2d 416 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 29, 1983

Under D.C.Code § 17-305(a) (1981), our review of such findings is extremely limited: we must treat them as presumptively correct unless they are clearly erroneous or unsupported by the record. See, e.g. Edmund J. … Although various precedents in this jurisdiction hold that the owner of property is qualified, by reason of the fact of ownership, to offer an opinion of the property’s value, see, e.g., Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

Lasley v. Georgetown University

688 A.2d 1381 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1997

United States, 718 F.2d 202, 205 (6th Cir.1983), cert. denied, 469 U.S. 817 , 105 S.Ct. 84 , 83 L.Ed.2d 31 (1984) (plaintiff failed to show that her immunological reaction to a swine flu inoculation caused the auto-immune … The following exchange during the District Court trial clearly illustrates the insufficiency of Lasley’s proposed inference of causation from comparative risks alone: PLAINTIFF: Let me ask you [Dr.

Geter v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 2023

Geter has established that admission of Mr. DiCostanzo’s testimony was error. Alternatively, the government contends that the erroneous admission of Mr. … Geter as one of a group of people who “went up to 8 The footage depicts a nighttime scene, and the color scheme is mostly a muted palette of browns and greys; the only colors clearly visible are the blue

United States v. Sedgwick

345 A.2d 465 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1975

It is from this dismissal that the government has appealed, saying that the trial court clearly misconstrued the Brady case, supra, and its progeny, by declaring a pretrial duty on the part of the prosecution to have released … Mississippi seem to support the view that a ruling based on a “reasonable but erroneous belief” that a trial should not be allowed to proceed does not establish a valid double jeopardy plea in the absence of any judicial

Towles v. United States

496 A.2d 560 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 1985

It seems to me, therefore, that upon retrial of a felony murder charge when the first jury has acquitted of second degree murder, the second jury can properly consider a second degree murder charge only if there is a clearly … The state of mind that was viewed at common law as constituting "malice" was established by the intent to commit the felony.