Case law

Matter of Brown

672 A.2d 577 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 4, 1996

Brown, a member of the bar of the District of Columbia, was suspended for 60 days, effective December 3, 1994, from the practice of law in Maryland. … BOARD ON PROFESSIONAL RESPONSIBILITY Patricia A. Brannan Date: _ All members of the Board concur in this Report and Recommendation. 1 .

Kalbfus v. Siddons

42 App. D.C. 310 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 22, 1914

Brown v. Lane, 40 App. D. C. 533. … Reagan v. United States, 182 U. S. 419 , 45 L. ed. 1162, 21 Sup. Ct. Rep. 842; Shurtleff v. United States, 189 U. S. 311 , 47 L. ed. 828, 23 Sup. Ct. Rep. 535; Ham v. Board of Police, 142 Mass. 90 , 7 N.

In re Sabo

49 A.3d 1219 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 16, 2012

Co. v. Niziolek, 395 Mass. 737 , 481 N.E.2d 1356 (1985). … Reverend Brown observed that, prior to his conviction, Mr.

Gilmore v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia

695 A.2d 1164 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 22, 1997

See Evenrud v. … Seefeldt v.

In Re Dietz

675 A.2d 33 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 18, 1996

Neither Bar Counsel nor Dietz has filed an exception to the Board’s recommendation. … The District of Columbia Court of Appeals previously has sanctioned Respondent in a disciplinary case as a result of his misconduct involving one of those clients (Mary Brown). In re Dietz, 633 A.2d 850 (D.C.1993).

Revolving Door

445 A.2d 615 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 30, 1982

(Less than a month earlier, on March 31,1980, a division of this court had issued its decision in Brown v. … See, e.g., Brown v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning, D.C.App., 413 A.2d 1276 (1980); Armstrong v.

District of Columbia Metropolitan Police Dep't v. District of Columbia Public Employee Relations Board

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 21, 2026

DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA PUBLIC EMPLOYEE RELATIONS BOARD, et al., APPELLEES. … Simpson for appellee Public Employee Relations Board. Daniel J. McCartin, with whom Benjamin J.

Malloy v. United States

483 A.2d 678 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 2, 1984

Boyd observed that Rick, who was subsequently identified as appellant Brown, had been pulling “a big cabinet.” … Boone v. United States, supra, 296 A.2d at 450 (citing United States v.

C & P Building Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

442 A.2d 129 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1982

See George Washington University v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, D.C. App., 429 A.2d 1342, 1345 (1981); Lenkin v. … See Sheridan-Kalorama Neighborhood Council v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment, supra.

Harrison v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia

758 A.2d 19 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 2000

Harmon v. Board of Trustees, supra, mem. op. at 7. … Hoage v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, 714 A.2d 776 (D.C. 1998); Gilmore v. Board of Trustees of the University of the District of Columbia, 695 A.2d 1164 (D.C.1997). 2 .

Edmund J. Flynn Company v. Schlosser

265 A.2d 599 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 22, 1970

See Gordon v. … Johnson, D.C.App., 229 A.2d 163 (1967) (and cases cited therein); Brier v. Orenberg, D.C.Mun.App., 90 A.2d 832 (1952); Creighton v. Brown, D.C.Mun.App., 77 A.2d 559 (1950); 3 Corbin on Contracts § 589 (1960). 8 .

Burnice Stackhouse v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

111 A.3d 636 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 19, 2015

See McCamey v. … Brown v.

In Re Feigenbaum

951 A.2d 754 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 26, 2008

See In re Brown, 797 A.2d 1232 (D.C.2002) (A reciprocal discipline of five-year suspension with fitness condition was imposed based on a California resignation with charges pending.). *757 Since no exception has been taken … As we find support in the record for the Board’s findings, we accept them, and adopt the sanction that the Board recommended.

Waste Management of Maryland, Inc. v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

775 A.2d 1117 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 5, 2001

as may be provided by the Board. 11 D.C.M.R. § 3315.2 (emphasis added). … The requirement set forth in this rule that an appeal be timely is jurisdictional; hence we have said that “if the appeal was not timely filed, the Board was without power to consider it.” Goto v.

Williamson v. United States

445 A.2d 975 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 11, 1982

See Sousa v. United States, supra; Parker v. … (emphasis in original) (quoting Goswick v. State, 143 So.2d 817, 820 (Fla.1962)). Cf. Scott v.

Citizens Ass'n of Georgetown, Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

359 A.2d 295 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 23, 1976

Reilly v. Ozzard, 33 N.J. 529 , 166 A.2d 360 (1960), and Schear v. … Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, D.C.App., 292 A.2d 807 , 809 n.3 (1972); Citizens Association of Georgetown v. D. C. Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, D.C.App., 288 A.2d 666 , 670 n.4 (1972).

Braxton v. National Capital Housing Authority

396 A.2d 215 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 19, 1978

Roberson v. District of Columbia Board of Higher Edu *217 cation, D.C.App., 359 A.2d 28 , 31 n. 4 (1976) (Bd. of Higher Education not a suable entity) (dictum); Miller v. … See Brown v.

Davis v. Henderson

652 A.2d 634 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 12, 1995

In 1987 the Board created the salient factor scores “to guide the Board in making the decision whether to grant or deny parole.” White v. Hyman, 647 A.2d 1175, 1179 (D.C.1994) (discussing present parole guidelines). … See Brown-Bey v. Hyman, 649 A.2d 8, 10 (D.C.1994) (parole regulations do not create a protected liberty interest in a specific parole rehearing date) (citing White v. Hyman, 647 A.2d 1175 (D.C.1994)); Jones v.

Lonon v. Board of Directors of Fairfax Village Condominium IV Unit Owners Ass'n

535 A.2d 1386 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jan 29, 1988

The expression “by suit brought in the name of the Board of Directors” does not obviously contemplate the self-help method of direct foreclosure sales arranged by the board itself. … See Scott v. District of Columbia, 493 A.2d 319, 323 (D.C.1985); Autocomp Inc. v. Publishing Computer Service, Inc., 331 A.2d 338, 340 (D.C.1975).

2447 Good Hope Road, Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board

295 A.2d 513 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 2, 1972

Citizens Associations of Georgetown, Inc. v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control Board, D.C.App., 280 A.2d 309, 311 (1971) (footnote omitted). See also Sophia’s Incorporated v. … V, 1972)). See D.C.Code 1967, § 25-106, and D.C.Code 1967, § 25-118 (Supp. V, 1972). . The validity of the Board’s order dated February 19, 1971, was the subject of another appeal to this court. In Byrd v.