Case law

District of Columbia v. Miss Dallas Trucking, LLC

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2020

unjust scheme in those cases where critical information in the violator’s possession—related to the company’s size and ability to absorb a fine—is practically unavailable to the District so that a company might effectively immunize … Indeed, even if it were clearly established that Dallas Trucking is a small company, unable to absorb the $50,000 penalty sought by the District, the trial court might still determine the violation was serious enough and

Hisler v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

950 A.2d 738 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 19, 2008

Petitioner has not established — or even argued — that any such exceptional circumstances exist for her failure to raise any of these arguments. … Accordingly, ALJ Carney’s reasoning is not "clearly ordained by law.”

Citizens Coalition v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

619 A.2d 940 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1993

based on factual findings which are supported by substantial evidence in the record and are not clearly erroneous nor inconsistent with the Zoning Regulations. … This national energy policy is established by the Public Utility Regulatory Policies Act of 1978, Pub.L.

Hutchinson v. Brown

19 D.C. 136 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 9, 1890

They must be established by different forms of proof, and they admit of different defenses. We had occasion to consider this subject somewhat in the suit of Keyser vs. Fendall, Admr. of Hume, 5 Mackey, 47 . … We think clearly that it cannot, and this for many reasons: “1. It was taken by the plaintiffs themselves with their own assent; “ 2. They had carried it into execution and, as far as they could, reaped its fruits; “ 3.

Hooker v. Edes Home

579 A.2d 608 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 13, 1990

We further hold that at least one of the appellants — Mary Hooker — presently qualifies as a representative member of that class. … While “special interest” is a term of uncertain scope, it appears that at least a clearly identified intended beneficiary has a justiciable interest in enforcement of the trust.

Blake Construction Co. v. C. J. Coakley Co.

431 A.2d 569 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 27, 1981

Fraud must be established by clear and convincing evidence which is not equally consistent with either honesty or deceit. … that such clause “did not give [Blake] a license to cause delays ‘willfully’ by ‘unreasoning action,’ ‘without due consideration,’ and in ‘disregard of the rights of the other parties,’ nor did the provision grant [Blake] immunity

District of Columbia v. Miss Dallas Trucking, LLC

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 22, 2020

unjust scheme in those cases where critical information in the violator’s possession—related to the company’s size and ability to absorb a fine—is practically unavailable to the District so that a company might effectively immunize … Indeed, even if it were clearly established that Dallas Trucking is a small company, unable to absorb the $50,000 penalty sought by the District, the trial court might still determine the violation was serious enough and

Harris v. United States

612 A.2d 198 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 10, 1992

The remaining twenty-two states either apply another standard or have not clearly established a standard in a published opinion that we have found. … The ten remaining states either apply yet another standard or have not clearly established a standard in a published opinion that we could readily locate. State v.

In Re TWM

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.

Brown v. United States

27 A.3d 127 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 1, 2011

United States, 901 A.2d 770, 776 (D.C.2006) (“the underlying factual findings are reviewed under the ‘clearly erroneous’ standard and ... the decision whether to admit or exclude the proffered statement, based on those factual … that during the time decedent was in the emergency room he was substantially and predominantly under the influence of the trauma which had been inflicted upon him, and that the declarations which he made at the time ... do qualify

Williams v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 10, 2022

United States, 820 A.2d 540, 546 (D.C. 2003) (rejecting the appellant’s Winfield argument where the “proffered facts individually [were] clearly speculative and [did] not satisfy Winfield” and, when facts were examined collectively … Brown’s motivation to curry favor with the government – establishing that his simple assault prosecution was pending when he testified before the grand jury in this case and the possible punishment he faced for that charge

District of Columbia Dep't of Human Services v. Butler

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 22, 2025

See Full Duals and Qualified Medicare Beneficiary (QMB) Only, Department of Health Care Finance—DHCF, https://dhcf.dc.gov/service/qualified-Medicare-beneficiary-qmb; https://perma.cc/VR3U-38RG (last visited February 18, 2025 … See generally 42 C.F.R. § 435.831 (governing what expenses during a budget-period may be deducted from income in establishing eligibility); 53 Fed.

Donald M. McCall v. D.C. Housing Authority

126 A.3d 701 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 19, 2015

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must set forth sufficient facts to establish the elements of a legally cognizable claim,” Woods v. … [T]he statute clearly enumerates termination as a separate discrete personnel action, which is prohibited if taken in retaliation for protected activity.”

Jack Baker, Inc. v. Office Space Development Corp.

664 A.2d 1236 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 25, 1995

Kerby Saunders, Inc., 206 A.D.2d 166 , 619 N.Y.S.2d 260, 263 (N.Y.App.Div.1994) (“The party seeking to enforce a contract bears the burden to establish that a binding agreement was made and to prove the terms of the contract … Accordingly, parties will not be bound to a preliminary agreement unless the evidence presented clearly indicates that they intended to be bound at that point. See Simplicio v.

Fererro v. Western Union Telegraph Co.

9 App. D.C. 455 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1896

of the rule aforesaid, the inquiry remains whether the dispatch in this case comes clearly within its application. … In view of these considerations, we think that a different rule ought to be established for cases where the face of the message clearly shows that a business transaction is con *471 templated, and that negligence in its transmission

Washington v. United States

884 A.2d 1080 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 19, 2005

Jacqueline Lee, deputy chief medical examiner for the District, who qualified as an expert in forensic pathology, testified that Anderson's death was a homicide caused by a gunshot wound to the head. … Under that standard, this court will reverse only if the defendant's substantial rights were so clearly prejudiced as to jeopardize the fairness of the trial. Hunter v.

Jones v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

158 A.3d 906 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 4, 2017

Code § 32-1508 establishes that a claimant may be entitled to “compensation for disability,” which D.C. … The statement is perfectly sound once it is settled that the impairment in question qualifies as a scheduled injury.

Rivera v. United States

941 A.2d 434 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2008

“It is well established that a trial judge may comment upon the evidence in a criminal case so long as the ultimate resolution of factual issues is clearly left to the jury.” Hall v. … United States, 898 A.2d 349, 354 (D.C.2006) (citations omitted). *442 “To establish ineffective assistance of counsel, an appellant must demonstrate first that his trial counsel’s performance was deficient ...and must “also

United States v. Harris

617 A.2d 189 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 30, 1992

In its analysis, the Court observed that “[although the principle that limits a search incident to a lawful custodial arrest may be stated clearly enough, courts have discovered the principle difficult to apply in specific … In so doing, the Supreme Court stated explicitly that it adhered to the principles established in Chimel v.

Proctor v. United States

172 A.3d 396 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 16, 2017

The trial court qualified Officer Michael Jewell as “an expert in the distribution, use and pricing of marijuana in the District of Columbia and in the relationship between guns in (sic) the drug trade in the District of … That testimony is quite “speculative,” see Schools, supra, 84 A.3d at 512 , in the factual context of this case, and does not clearly prove Mr.