Case law

In Re Bailey

883 A.2d 106 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 15, 2005

It simply establishes that Mr. Bailey is directed to pay for the medical services provided to Ms. Haile by Dr. … This last paragraph of the authorization clearly stated that Mr. Bailey agreed to withhold such monies owed to Dr. Garmon for his services from any settlements due to Ms.

RICHARD C. BARTEL v. BANK OF AMERICA CORPORATION

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 24, 2015

Subsection (a) specifies three requirements for establishing an entitlement to enforce the instrument. … Qualifying as a person entitled to enforce an instrument does not establish a right to payment of the instrument.

Harris v. United States

373 A.2d 590 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 5, 1977

The evidence established that appellants and their colleagues were out to “get” the *592 alleged rapist. Several witnesses testified that the group wanted to find and beat up the alleged rapist. … This being so, “such utterance is admitted in the exercise of sound judicial discretion which is not disturbed on appeal unless clearly erroneous.” Nicholson v. United States, D.C.App., 368 A.2d 561, 564 (1977).

In Re DG

583 A.2d 160 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 3, 1990

After six weeks without contact, the mother re-established ties with her children, and they were returned to her care. … The Fourth and Fifth Circuits held that the CWA gave the children causes of action, and that state officials were not entitled to qualified immunity from the suits.

In re Schuman

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 2021

When they did not go to that purpose and were instead refunded, the firm held—and then misappropriated—entrusted  11 client funds.3 Schuman’s clients clearly did not authorize using … Candilis should not have been qualified as an expert because he “refused to address [the Kersey] elements and concocted his own.” But Dr.

In Re Kraut

580 A.2d 1305 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 4, 1990

THE COURT: Your fee arrangements, because I don’t know whether he qualifies for free legal— MS. … Thus, we conclude that willful disobedience of a court order has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt. See Gorfkle, 444 A.2d at 939-40 .

Warren v. District of Columbia

444 A.2d 1 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 21, 1981

premised in large part upon the assumption that the volunteer is free to assess each rescue situation, weigh the risks involved, and determine whether to shoulder the obligation or leave it to someone else. [3] Police officers clearly … As the Chandler court noted, the questions of sovereign immunity and duty require separate analysis. Chandler, supra at 966 .

Jacobs v. United States

861 A.2d 15 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 10, 2004

And since he actually did this under a threat to kill he clearly committed robbery .... Id. at 348-49 (emphasis added). … In thereby using force to establish his “complete and exclusive control” of the weapon, Lattimore, supra note 5, “he clearly committed robbery.” PERKINS, supra; see also 4 CHARLES E.

In the Matter of CAP

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.

Banov v. Kennedy

694 A.2d 850 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 1, 1997

Certain orders are considered “final” for the purpose of appellate jurisdiction if they qualify as collateral orders under the doctrine established in Cohen v. … The rule established in Cobbledick requiring contempt of an order before an appeal is allowed has survived the exception to the final-order requirement established in the later case of Cohen. United States v.

Kearns v. McNeill Bros. Moving & Storage Co.

509 A.2d 1132 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 27, 1986

Moreover, the burden was on McNeill to prove that Kearns clearly and unequivocally intended to abandon his goods; it made no attempt to do so, however, for it did not raise abandonment as a defense. … In any event, McNeill qualifies as a “warehouseman” under the UCC because it is “engaged in the business of storing goods for hire.” D.C.Code § 28:7-102(l)(h) (1981).

Gardner v. United States

999 A.2d 55 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 8, 2010

This ruling was clearly erroneous because this court explicitly rejected that rationale in Thomas v. … Zervos and did not clearly object to her testimony on Confrontation Clause grounds. We decline to do so.

Drayton v. United States

877 A.2d 145 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 16, 2005

admission without the opportunity for cross-examination would constitute prejudicial error as “the trial court based its verdict entirely on the officers’ testimony concerning D.D.’s out-of-court statements.” 5 Such an error clearly … Defense counsel’s objections to Officer Williams' testimony regarding the statements of D.D.- and the unidentified witness were similarly based on a failure to lay a foundation establishing that the statements qualified as

Convention Center Referendum Committee v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

441 A.2d 871 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 3, 1980

It establishes a tripartite system of government with co-equal, coordinate branches. … Clearly, per our analysis in Part III, pages 877-881 of this opinion, only the Mayor “is authorized by law ... to spend public funds appropriated by Congress, derived by taxes, borrowed or otherwise acquired for public use

Clark v. Moler

418 A.2d 1039 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 1980

Lewis’ motion can qualify under the criteria of Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b)(1), the decision of whether to grant the motion is equitable in nature and other factors must be considered. … Appellant argues that since there is a judicial policy favoring a trial on the merits, only a prima facie defense need be established by the movant.

Robinson v. Robinson

629 A.2d 562 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 9, 1993

Appellant, Claudia Robinson, contends that the trial court erred in doing so and that the relevant findings are clearly erroneous. We reverse and remand for further proceedings. I. … Instead, the trial court concluded that Robinson qualified as a “noncustodial parent [who] need[ed] a temporary period of reduced child support payment,” under D.C.Code § 16-916.1(Z )(5).

Banks v. District of Columbia Department of Consumer & Regulatory Affairs

634 A.2d 433 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1993

DCRA's finding that Hodges "believ[ed] Respondent was a lawyer" was clearly *438 erroneous, in light of Hodges' testimony. See supra at 4. … Banks also asserts that DCRA's actions violated his First and Thirteenth Amendment rights and also violated the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the United States Constitution.

Crutchfield v. Hewett

2 App. D.C. 373 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1894

The burden of proof is upon the complainants to establish the necessary allegations of the bill which are denied, and this includes proof that Mrs. Shepherd did not execute the deed of trust. … Kelly received it, qualified and entered upon the duties of the office. No one questioned his authority.

Modiri v. 1342 Restaurant Group, Inc.

904 A.2d 391 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 10, 2006

Zois clearly had every incentive to assist Andrews in the disciplinary proceedings.” Id. at 517. … That a written agreement was not produced and that Modiri later refused to pay the majority of Haber-man's bill do not establish that Judge Rankin’s finding based on the credibility of oral testimony, was clearly erroneous

Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

403 A.2d 737 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 21, 1979

The 1977-1982 phase of the plan contained a proposal for the establishment of campus boundaries. … The BZA’s conclusion regarding the campus boundary issue reads as follows: On the matter of the campus boundaries, the record clearly reflects that the property which the University is requesting to be included in its boundary