Case law

Matter of CLW

467 A.2d 706 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 1, 1983

Thus, it seems too clear for further discussion that, assuming again arguendo that the report was Brady material, appellant was clearly not prejudiced by the government's failure to disclose the material before trial. … The trial judge, as trier of both the law and facts, was uniquely qualified to assess the evidence and proceedings and make a judgment respecting the Brady issue and the effect, if any, of non-disclosure.

Enders v. District of Columbia

4 A.3d 457 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 16, 2010

It is only where the facts are undisputed or clearly established that probable cause becomes a question of law for the court. Henderson v. … Precisely what the word means in context and whether “minor damage” qualifies may be debated.

Estate of Underwood v. National Credit Union Administration

665 A.2d 621 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 31, 1995

But clearly this is not that case. … Legler, a qualified psychiatrist, was called to testify about the source of appellant’s depression and the effect of this depression on her ability to cope with her disease — topics on which he was qualified to testify.

Hotel Ass'n of Washington v. District of Columbia Minimum Wage & Industrial Safety Board

318 A.2d 294 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 1974

In rejecting all these objections, the majority has placed so narrow a construction upon the Administrative Procedure Act that virtual immunity from its procedural safeguards and from judicial oversight of fundamental fairness … They stand for the proposition that unless a bipartisan board is balanced, not just in theory but in fact, its composition is not immune from judicial examination.

Hill v. United States

622 A.2d 680 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 30, 1993

United States, 347 U.S. 227, 229 , 74 S.Ct. 450, 451 , 98 L.Ed. 654 (1954) (stressing government's burden "to establish... that such contact with the juror was harmless to the defendant"). … Thus, the weight of "the disclosure" is clearly de minimis. [3] At the voir dire, the juror admitted that "I just drove through Wiley Street. I didn't stop anywhere in particular."

Schlank v. Williams

572 A.2d 101 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 22, 1990

. § 395.13 (a). 3 At the time of the proceedings in this case, RSA had established no such procedures in the District of Columbia. … District of Columbia, supra, we cited several cases for the principle that “an award of attorneys’ fees is warranted ‘[wjhere an individual is forced to seek judicial assistance to secure a clearly defined and established

White v. United States

582 A.2d 774 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 27, 1990

United States, 521 A.2d 254 , 258 n. 5 (D.C.1987). 9 Therefore, the issue is whether, under the test established by Blockburger v. … As in Kind , there is no theoretical bar to a retrial with proper instructions under the intermediate level of forgery, since the evidence presented clearly would support such a conviction.

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

847 A.2d 1127 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2004

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 .

Barstow v. Capital Traction Co.

29 App. D.C. 362 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 2, 1907

Another case in which the rule is clearly announced is that of Sioux City & P. R. Co. v. Stout, 17 Wall. 657 , 21 L. ed. 745. … As matter of defense, it was inciunbent upon the defendant to establish such contributory negligence, unless shown in the proof produced by the plaintiff.

Gates v. United States

481 A.2d 120 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 21, 1984

The calculus of these factors establishes sufficient basis for the common plan or scheme or identity prongs of the Drew test. … Here, the evidence is clearly probative, i.e., certainly identity was relevant and this evidence was material to that issue. Willcher, supra, 408 A.2d at 75.

In re P.S.

797 A.2d 1219 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 11, 2001

However, we qualified our conclusion by stating that “[t]he circumstances might be quite different if the child’s prospects for adoption were greater or a prospective placement had been shown,” id. at 951 , and we left open … The trial court was not clearly erroneous in finding that the birth parents appeared to spend relatively large sums on gifts for the two children presently residing with them, funds that could have been applied to making

Early v. Wagner

391 A.2d 252 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 17, 1978

Simpkins, D.C.App., 367 A.2d 107 (1976), we recognized that it could be argued, in the face of a medical opinion by a qualified physician offered by the defense, that a finding for a plaintiff based only on a lay opinion … Clearly, however, appellee's testimony of her pain, suffering, and weakened condition which had persisted since 1973 was sufficient to submit the issue of permanency to the jury. Alamo v. Del Rosario, supra .

District of Columbia v. BET Acquisition Corp.

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 17, 2025

We “construe [Section 12-309’s] notice requirement narrowly against claimants, because it is in derogation of the common law principle of sovereign immunity.” Id. at 516 (internal quotation marks omitted). … Feb. 1, 2024) (“The COVID-19 pandemic is clearly a ‘relevant fact’ that a willing seller and willing buyer would consider in an efficient market that adjusts for all major events.

In re T.J.L.

998 A.2d 853 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 22, 2010

B., 878 A.2d 1255, 1266 (D.C.2005) (applying harmless error standard of review established in Kotteakos v. … This case clearly differs from In re J.L. and In re A.R., in that here it was Mr. and Mrs. J., not appellant, who sought to call T.J.L. as an adverse witness.

French v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment

658 A.2d 1023 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 16, 1995

Thus, while our holdingtoday does not represent a new rule in the sense that it overrules prior law in the District of Columbia, it certainly decides “a matter of first impression in a manner not clearly foreshadowed.” … Applying the long-established substantial evidence test, we have no difficulty in affirming the Board’s order.

Ruffin v. United States

76 A.3d 845 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 5, 2013

In all three cases, the defendants were clearly aware that the police intended to apprehend them and their deliberate acts of physical resistance exceeded a single motion. … These two features establish that “person” is limited to natural persons.

IN RE D.R.

96 A.3d 45 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 31, 2014

Clearly, a person wearing trousers and a jacket will be able to conceal a larger weapon than someone wearing shorts and a tee shirt. … The government acknowledged in its closing argument that to prove CDW, it needed to establish that the knife was capable of being concealed.

Savage v. District of Columbia

54 A.2d 562 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 18, 1947

A large number of businesses such as theaters, massage establishments, hotels, lodging houses for transients, etc., are listed in the statute itself as requiring licenses. … The record shows clearly that the jail sentences were only to take effect if the fines were not paid. This method of sentencing is specifically authorized by D.C.Code 1940, § 11—606.

Dargan v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 28, 2026

Each certification qualified providers to engage in a different scope of practice: EMT-Basic and EMT-Advanced  3 providers were qualified to administer only basic life support … FEMS placed him on a “Critical Remediation Action Plan,” which established a “checklist” that Mr.

Chew v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals · May 2, 2024

Chew is not an otherwise qualified individual. … The defense, cross-examining the government’s witnesses, established that Mr.