Case law

Earth Island Institute v. The Coca-Cola Company

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 29, 2024

and prominently qualify recyclable claims to the extent necessary to avoid deception about the availability of recycling programs and collection sites to consumers. . . . … An example of the second type of puffery is “Red Bull gives you wings”—that is clearly false, but no reasonable consumer would take it literally.

Lanton v. United States

779 A.2d 895 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2001

Johnson similarly alleged that the wife “was clearly the aggressor and *902 baiting him to fight her.” … It may be that, if a hearing had been held, trial counsel could have elaborated on the facts disclosed in his affidavit and established that his performance satisfied the standards established by Strickland and its progeny

Western Exterminating Co. v. Hartford Accident & Indemnity Co.

479 A.2d 872 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 12, 1984

Western subsequently settled with the Re-meikises and now seeks to recover all expenses incurred in defending the Remeikis case as well as all expenses incurred in establishing Hartford’s wrongful refusal to provide a defense … Such a situation would clearly be “an accident.” The policy does not, however, cover “an occurrence of alleged negligent manufacture”; it covers negligent manufacture that results in “an occurrence.” Id. at 420 .

Damian J. Smith v. United States

169 A.3d 887 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 21, 2017

Without regard to the government’s degree of fault, the court clearly expressed a desire not to allow the government an “unfair advantage.” … analysis of their “substance,” to establish that the quantity of pills was great enough to reflect an intent to distribute.

District of Columbia v. Beretta, U.S.A., Corp.

872 A.2d 633 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 21, 2005

In such a case, the plaintiff bears the burden of establishing that the criminal act was so foreseeable that a duty arises to guard against it. … [and not] clearly excessive in relation to the ... local benefits.” Pike, 397 U.S. at 142 , 90 S.Ct. 844 .

Davis & Associates v. Williams

892 A.2d 1144 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 23, 2006

Davis’ claim clearly appears to come within the language of D.C.Code § 1 — 1189.8(a)(2) setting forth CAB’s exclusive jurisdiction over the claim. … If this contingency were established, Davis would be entitled to its fee without regard to the account into which the revenues had been placed.

Coles v. United States

682 A.2d 167 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 8, 1996

"The `[a]ugmentation of sentence' based on a defendant's decision to `stand on [his] right to put the Government to its proof rather than plead guilty' is clearly improper." United States v. … This does not mean however that the sentencing process is immune from appellate scrutiny.

District of Columbia Insurance Guaranty v. Algernon Blair, Inc.

565 A.2d 564 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 26, 1989

This view is reinforced by the drafters' choice of the broad term "arising from" rather than some modifier of the word "property" clearly identifying it as *568 the insured object for the injury of which the unpaid claim … or liability upon, a domestic corporation, necessarily, and in like manner, qualifies the status of a foreign corporation authorized to transact business in the District of Columbia.

Robin v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 16, 2025

instructions fairly contemplated that the marshal could make some limited judgment calls and communicate them with jurors on the discrete subject of the firearm’s safe handling.  18 establish … That is far too cribbed a view of what qualifies as a ministerial function that can be carried out without judicial oversight.

Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Oxendine

649 A.2d 825 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 9, 1994

ruling that the FDCA did not preempt state tort law actions against manufacturers of prescription drugs, the court in Kociemba found that “[i]f Congress wants to take the extraordinary step of giving drug manufacturers immunity … Rather, later scientific inquiry must establish that in probability the scientific fact on which the verdict relies is wrong. 14 Given the nature of the scientific process and its continuing development of data and on-going

Coleman v. Heurich

13 D.C. 189 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Feb 12, 1883

This was very clearly stated afterwards in the eighth instruction granted by the court at the request of the plaintiff, and also in the charge to the jury on page 36 of the printed record. … It is now clearly established — albeit the wisdom of the rule has recently been stoutly disputed — that the question of probable cause must be decided exclusively by the judge, and that the jury can only be permitted to find

Georgetown University Hospital v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

929 A.2d 865 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 2, 2007

While this standard is clearly one that provides great deference to the agency’s determination, if we cannot find support in the record for the findings that are the basis for the agency’s determination, then we must reverse … This court has held that the burden is on the employer to prove that work for which the claimant was qualified was in fact available, see Washington Post, 675 A.2d at 41 , but the evidence in the record is that petitioner

Ashton General Partnership, Inc. v. Federal Data Corp.

682 A.2d 629 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 22, 1996

As drafted in 1982, § 45-1926 clearly applied to business chance brokers and the sale of a business. 8 In 1984, the Council of the Dis *636 trict of Columbia amended the statute to establish registration and certification … The legislative history of the 1984 amendments clearly reveals the Council’s intent to continue to regulate business chance brokers.

Odeniran v. Hanley Wood, LLC

985 A.2d 421 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 17, 2009

By 3:00 p.m., Sheetz believed that Odeniran still “clearly” had done “no work.” … However the last week leading up to it was clearly the problem, most importantly the last day.

Council of the District of Columbia v. Clay

683 A.2d 1385 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 31, 1996

That provision automatically transferred to the Career Service only those otherwise qualified District of Columbia employees who were “classified as a GS-10 or less ” under the federal classification system. … Read together, however, they establish to our satisfaction that she was properly placed in the Excepted Service.

Winters v. Ridley

596 A.2d 569 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 4, 1991

I believe a postenactment declaration of legislative intent, clearly intended to affect pending litigation, is inherently suspect. … Even so, the preemptive language is powerful evidence that Congress did not intend any other, more general, legislation, whenever enacted, to qualify the authority of the state adjutants general as set out in the Technician

MOTOROLA INC. v. MICHAEL PATRICK MURRAY

147 A.3d 751 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 20, 2016

But, as Joiner and Kumho Tire clearly demonstrate, the trial court will have the discretion (informed by careful inquiry) to exclude some expert testimony. … In' the absence of legislation prescribing rules of evidence, "this court is the final authority for establishing the evidentiary rules for the Superior Court of the District of Columbia.” Laumer v.

In Re Allen

27 A.3d 1178 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 8, 2011

that respondent’s actions were not so much motivated by a desire for personal gain as by psychological disturbances .... ”); In re Kent, 467 A.2d 982, 984 (D.C.1983) (“[T]he unusual facts and circumstances of this case clearly … We do not mean to indicate that an attorney’s stress qualifies as an exceptional circumstance in every disciplinary proceeding.

Jennings v. United States

431 A.2d 552 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 21, 1981

Upon cross-examination by counsel for Robert Jennings, however, both officers qualified their testimony to resolve any inconsistencies. … The verdict obviously turned on an issue of credibility and clearly the jury did not credit appellant’s testimony in reaching a finding of guilt. See Thompson v. United States, D.C. App., 263 A.2d 264 (1970).

District of Columbia v. Bongam

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 31, 2022

Bongam qualified as an employer.” See D.C. Code § 32-1301(1B). … District of Columbia, 318 A.2d 596, 597 (D.C. 1974) (holding that the trial court did not clearly err in awarding damages to two employees who were under compensated, only after reducing the total amounts claimed upon