Case law

Unkelsbee v. Homestead Fire Insurance Co. of Baltimore

41 A.2d 168 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 6, 1945

Theft Or Vandalism Our approach to a construction of the policy is clearly defined. … Throughout these cases, whether appearing in a clause creating or in one excepting from liability, unless qualifying words appear, such as “direct,” “direct or indirect,” “sole,” etc., the usual rule attributing a result

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.

Horton v. United States

541 A.2d 604 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 4, 1988

It is well established that everyone has a reasonable expectation of privacy for fourth amendment purposes not only in one’s home but also in the curtilage surrounding the home. Dow Chemical Co. v. … We understand from the trial court’s ruling that the court did not consider whether the area outside the fence might have qualified as part of the protected curtilage surrounding the home.

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.

Washington Welfare Ass'n, Inc. v. Wheeler

496 A.2d 613 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 12, 1985

No other SENH staff member who testified regarding the meeting unequivocally stated that appellee had been disruptive; generally, the witnesses could not remember the event clearly. … It is my intention that current employees will have first priority for those positions for which they qualify..

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.

Citizens' Coalition Against the Proposed Brookings Office Building v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission

516 A.2d 506 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 1986

We have examined this exhibit, and it clearly shows that at certain points on the P Street property line, the building height would reach approximately eighty-nine feet. … allow petitioner to cross-examine Brookings’ rebuttal witness, we note that petitioner’s counsel never requested an opportunity to proffer what facts he hoped to elicit through cross-examination, nor has petitioner ever established

Odemns v. United States

901 A.2d 770 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 22, 2006

Moreover, on proper objection it is clearly the burden of the party seeking its admission, to identify the appropriate exception and to demonstrate that the testimony fell within it. … 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 ... the declarations which he made at the time ... do qualify

National Health Laboratories, Inc. v. Ahmadi

596 A.2d 555 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 1991

In its motion for a JNOY, the NHL argued that it had established superseding cause as a matter of law. The trial court disagreed, as do we. … Full cross-examination was permitted and the NHL had the opportunity to attempt to qualify its own expert. We see no error by the trial court in permitting the jury to take into account the expert’s methodology.

George Washington University v. Violand

940 A.2d 965 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 31, 2008

Such allegations, however, clearly fall outside the applicable one year statute of limitations applicable to claims arising under the District of Columbia Human Rights Act.... … immunity, a well-established general legal rule that trumps the new rule of law, which general rule reflects both reliance interests and other significant policy justifications, or (4) a principle of law ... that limits

Robinson v. United States

448 A.2d 853 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 1, 1982

The trial court clearly erred in striking as hearsay, testimony as to the decedent’s boast to appellant of having earlier murdered a man. … In rebuttal, the defense sought to call the two witnesses who had never before been qualified as forensic pathologists and had not reviewed any of the evidence in the case.

RAMON R. CHERRY v. UNITED STATES

164 A.3d 922 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 27, 2017

United States, 99 A.3d 650, 661 (D.C. 2014) (“It is a well-established principle of statutory interpretation that the law favors rational and sensible construction. … Cherry clearly seemed reluctant at the outset to identify himself. When Mr.

Edwards v. Entwisle

13 D.C. 43 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 23, 1882

Once shown to have a fraudulent design, a party will not be listened to in the effort to qualify his own wrong, but it will be deemed to extend to-all who may be affected by his conduct. … 'The burden of proving the expenditures to have come from her separate estate is clearly upon the wife, according to the ruling of the Supreme Court in Seitz vs. Mitchell.

In Re Penning

930 A.2d 144 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2007

Richardson concluded that Penning "clearly has a prominent cortical dementia which looks quite consistent with probable Alzheimer’s disease.” Dr. … An examiner is "an individual qualified by training or experience in the diagnosis, care, or treatment of the causes and conditions giving rise to the alleged incapacity, such as a gerontologist, psychiatrist, or qualified

A.S. Johnson Co. v. Atlantic Masonry Co.

693 A.2d 1117 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 1, 1997

Johnson, therefore, does not rely on an implied waiver of Atlantic’s right not to be sued by its own employees, but merely seeks to recover under a contractual provision where Atlantic expressly waived its immunity from such … Clearly, this is not our case. 6 .

Esteves v. Esteves

680 A.2d 398 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 1996

Through direct examination, the trial judge established that Ms. Esteves (1) signed the settlement agreement with Mr. … Despite her consent to her counsel’s withdrawal, the June 13,1995, trial transcript clearly reveals that Ms.

In re C.T.

724 A.2d 590 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 11, 1999

Third, blood tests established that C.M.J. was not the biological father of S.T. … The effect of an order terminating the parent-child relationship is statutorily defined as follows: [A TPR order] divests the parent and the child of all legal rights, powers, privileges, immunities, duties and obligations

1901 Wyoming Avenue Cooperative Ass'n v. Lee

345 A.2d 456 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 30, 1975

In this connection the following remarks are also of interest: Analytically, of course, the question of what the parties intended is clearly a question of fact. But the courts have long called it a question of law. … The reason is not tliat it is a question of law in the literal sense, for it is a question of fact in the literal sense, but the reason is that the judge is better qualified than the jury to interpret the written language

Vines v. United States

70 A.3d 1170 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 11, 2013

Instead, as set forth in more detail below, the record establishes that Mr. … May collectively established that Mr.