Case law

United States v. Barber

20 D.C. 79 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1891

H. was “ choked, suffocated and •drowned,” was, without the addition of any qualifying epithet, a sufficient showing that the injury was of a homicidal character. We make this observation, not as a criticism upon Mr. … This was clearly a misapprehension of the learned author’s method.

In Re ATA

910 A.2d 293 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 2006

Moreover, L.C.L. stated that she would terminate any contact the twins had with A.T.A. unless a qualified therapist determined that such contact would be in the children's best interest. … Although the GAL believed both A.T.A. and the Ls were well-qualified, the GAL opined it was in the best interests of the twins to grant A.T.A.'

In re T.W.M.

964 A.2d 595 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 5, 2009

In the Guardian’s recommendation, he factually summarized the circumstances of both petitioners and determined that they were both qualified and generally comparable, but he ultimately favored A.E. over T.W.M. given A.E.’ … In light of this standard and the evidence adduced at trial, we conclude that T.W.M. failed to establish by clear and convincing evidence that placing T.E. with A.E. was clearly contrary to T.E.’s best interest.

Grillo v. National Bank of Washington

540 A.2d 743 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 1988

“A substantial question will exist ‘unless [the] injuries were clearly not compensable under the [statute].’ ” Tredway v. District of Columbia, 403 A.2d 732, 735 (D.C.) … Consequently, it seems clear that appellants must seek to recover under the WCA and cannot avoid the immunity which is provided to NBW by the statute.

Woods & Fay v. Dickinson

18 D.C. 301 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 1889

If he was not so authorized, then clearly his name should have been removed from the docket. … The cases cited by the complainants show that a special appearance may be made without such compromising effect upon the defendant’s immunities as a non-resident as are insisted upon. *306 We are next to consider the propriety

Graure v. United States

18 A.3d 743 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2011

“When an appellant challenges the trial court’s admission of hearsay statements as excited utterances, the underlying factual findings are reviewed under the clearly erroneous standard.” Melendez v. … Here, the trial court, did not err in finding that Djordjevic’s statements qualified as excited utterances.

Glenn v. Busey

11 D.C. 454 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 9, 1884

, and the statute of the State of Virginia in such cases made and pro- *456 •vi'ded, in accepting such appointment as trustee, and qualifying as such as required by said decree, the said plaintiff became and was substituted … He is appointed for the benefit of all parties who may establish rights in the cause.”

In re Speights

173 A.3d 96 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2017

Agreeing with the Hearing Committee’s determination that respondent’s errors and omissions clearly and convincingly demonstrate -his. violation of D.C. … Grenier was qualified to give opinions on the standard of care for lawyers in personal injury cases, and then (3) neither objecting to Mr.

Travers v. District of Columbia

672 A.2d 566 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1996

Clearly, this does not show the existence of a national standard since the expert admitted that he may or may not have discussed this at various national conferences. … This background is more than adequate to meet the requirements to qualify the expert to render an opinion on the subject involved. [7] See Jones, supra, 532 A.2d at 94 .

Potomac Development Corp. v. District of Columbia

28 A.3d 531 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2011

No categorical rule establishes how long governmental action must preclude use of property before a taking occurs. See id. at 335 , 122 S.Ct. 1465 . … Just as “rejection of the careful-case-management approach is especially important in suits where Government-official defendants are entitled to assert the defense of qualified immunity,” Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1953 , it is

In Re Douglass

859 A.2d 1069 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 7, 2004

Thus, the record must clearly establish lack of representation. 4 After a thorough review of the record, we are unable to find clear and convincing evidence that Mrs. … In this case, as noted below, we must assume (for the record does not establish clearly and convincingly to the contrary) that Mrs. Wilson was represented by Mr.

Boulton v. Institute of International Education

808 A.2d 499 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 2002

But the inference of discrimination that arises when an employer terminates and replaces an otherwise qualified employee in a protected class is not drawn so readily when the employee is not replaced, because the employee … Rather, for provisions relating to employee termination to be “unenforceable at law,” our cases have held that the employee handbook “must contain language clearly reserving the employer’s right to terminate at will.”

Azariah Israel & Ronald Marquet Cheadle v. United States

109 A.3d 594 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 26, 2014

Siskin also calculated the representation of African Americans among the qualified jurors who reported for service, finding that, over the four-month period preceding February 2009, 37.5 percent of the qualified venirepersons … However, as the Tarantino court recognized, “[a] single conspiracy is proven if the evidence establishes that each conspirator had the specific intent to further the common unlawful objective” and may be established even

Marshall v. United States

15 A.3d 699 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 24, 2011

Expert testimony presented at trial established that a bullet entered Green’s head through his face and severed his left carotid artery. … the party is adversely affected by it and only if “the court, in rendering its ruling, exceeded its authority and usurped ‘a prerogative that Congress has withheld from the courts,’ ” for example, by granting a witness immunity

In re Speights

173 A.3d 96 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2017

Agreeing with the Hearing Committee’s determination that respondent’s errors and omissions clearly and convincingly demonstrate -his. violation of D.C. … Grenier was qualified to give opinions on the standard of care for lawyers in personal injury cases, and then (3) neither objecting to Mr.

In re Speights

173 A.3d 96 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2017

Agreeing with the Hearing Committee’s determination that respondent’s errors and omissions clearly and convincingly demonstrate -his. violation of D.C. … Grenier was qualified to give opinions on the standard of care for lawyers in personal injury cases, and then (3) neither objecting to Mr.

Grant v. United States

509 A.2d 1147 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 30, 1986

Federal courts interpreting NARA have drawn some conclusions about the nature of the defendant’s burden to establish eligibility for NARA sentencing. … Section 2 of the District of Columbia Mandatory-Minimum Sentences Initiative of 1981 provides: The purpose of this initiative is to propose to the registered qualified electors of the District of Columbia the question of

In re Speights

173 A.3d 96 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 22, 2017

Agreeing with the Hearing Committee’s determination that respondent’s errors and omissions clearly and convincingly demonstrate -his. violation of D.C. … Grenier was qualified to give opinions on the standard of care for lawyers in personal injury cases, and then (3) neither objecting to Mr.

Mudd v. Occasions Caterers, Inc.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 23, 2021

or repudiating the arbitration provision so well established between the parties . . . … Occasions argues that the PSB did not qualify as wages it was obliged to pay Mr.

Hall v. Henderson

672 A.2d 1047 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 27, 1996

Although the Due Process Clause “shields from arbitrary or capricious deprivation those facets of a convicted criminal’s existence that qualify as ‘liberty interests,’ ” Harper v. … We reject Hall’s claim that the Board erred in finding that his armed assault constituted "unusual cruelty," clearly a merits determination. 5 .