Case law

Williams v. District of Columbia Board of Elections & Ethics

804 A.2d 316 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 14, 2002

Challenges filed by Mark Sibley and Shaun Snyder clearly implied that the petitions submitted by the Bishops contained forgeries or, at best, were not personally circulated by them. … The Board was established by the District of Columbia Charter as an independent agency. See District of Columbia Self-Government and Governmental Reorganization Act, § 491, Pub.L.

Murphy v. Bonanno

663 A.2d 505 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 7, 1995

The Facts Plaintiffs’ evidence at trial established that the Murphys married in 1976 but became estranged in the mid-1980’s. … Although the Woodward & Lothrop court stated "clearly probative,” it misquoted Federal Rule of Evidence 608(b), which does not contain the qualifier. 7 . Of course, Ms.

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.

Wilkins v. Ferguson

928 A.2d 655 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 19, 2007

Ferguson toward the child[;]” and it “utilized the well established ... best interest of the child standard in this decision.” … Generally, “[w]e review the trial court’s legal determinations de novo and its findings of fact under a clearly erroneous standard.”

In Re Jacoby

945 A.2d 1193 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 3, 2008

Opposition to Bar Counsel’s statement, which argued that Bar Counsel lacked standing to recommend discipline greater than that imposed in New Jersey and that identical reciprocal discipline should be imposed because there was no clearly … Responsibility finds (and this Court accepts) that the first, second, or fifth exceptions apply (i.e., the procedure elsewhere violated due process, there was an infirmity of proof, or the misconduct elsewhere does not qualify

Wolf v. Sherman

682 A.2d 194 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Aug 30, 1996

Although defined in various ways, a valid lien for purposes of this opinion may be viewed as a “[qualified right of property *197 which a creditor has in or over specific property of his debtor, as security for the debt or … no right other than one against the fund, the agreement would be meaningless unless it established a lien on the fund.”

Webb v. D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs.

204 A.3d 843 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 2019

Webb had proved by a preponderance of the evidence that she sustained injury to her immune and respiratory systems, and that her injury arose during the course of her employment in December 2014. … The final rule, which was adopted on June 26, 2017, and became effective on July 7, 2017, similarly provided that " 'Actual benefits secured' for the purpose of Section 2327 [of the CMPA] means the total established amount

Long v. United States

940 A.2d 87 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 15, 2007

Dunn’s hearsay statements, was clearly the product of her own free will. … was not intended “to establish or prove past events for possible use at trial”); State v.

Jones v. United States

669 A.2d 724 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Dec 29, 1995

Jones’s double jeopardy, vagueness, and collateral estoppel claims must be evaluated individually to determine whether they qualify as collateral orders. … This court has not clearly addressed whether collateral estoppel in a criminal case is grounds for interlocutory review under the Cohen doctrine. Jones argues that because under Ashe v.

Estenos v. PAHO/WHO Federal Credit Union

952 A.2d 878 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 3, 2008

As the EEOC qualifies as “any” organization, its timely cross-referral of appellant’s EEOC claim to DC OHR tolled the running of the one-year statute of limitations. … ground that he did not meet PAHO/ WHO-FCU’s fluency-in-English requirement, 17 which the employer asserts is a non-discriminatory reason because English proficiency was “required” for the office clerk position. 18 What clearly

Antoine Mayhand v. United States

127 A.3d 1198 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 9, 2015

Clearly on those parts of the call, he is emotionally agitated when he’s screaming at [Mr.] Mayhand. … Ballard’s “reasonable” demeanor while speaking to the 911 operator establish that Mr.

Duk Hea Oh v. National Capital Revitalization Corp.

7 A.3d 997 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Nov 12, 2010

Thus, a court should not grant a motion to strike “if the insufficiency of the defense is not clearly apparent, or if it raises factual issues that should be determined on a hearing on the merits.” … Oh’s pretext defense fails even under the (arguably less rigorous) pleading standard set forth in our established case law. Thus, we need not address Ms.

In Re Barry Downey

162 A.3d 162 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jun 29, 2017

Finally, she noted that Respondent “is clearly a good lawyer and a good husband and a good father and a good member of his church in his community and has no criminal history.” … Nor did Respondent admit facts establishing crimes of moral turpitude when he pled guilty. To be sure, the count of the indictment that alleged a licensing violation contained cross-references to other allegations.

Newman v. United States

705 A.2d 246 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 9, 1997

Hungerford never was charged with this crime, and she received immunity from prosecution as a result of her plea agreement to testify in the present murder case. … The government is not required to establish guilt beyond all doubt or to a mathematical certainty or to a scientific certainty. Its burden is to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

In re Edward T. Smith Bruce E. Gardner

99 A.3d 714 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Sep 18, 2014

Gardner’s 2010 Appointment as Conservator of the Person Although our decision in Sullivan is instructive, it does not clearly preclude an award of compensation from the Guardianship Fund for the services Mr. … as guardian ad litem to “ascertain information concerning [plaintiff‟s] mental condition” and provide legal services to the plaintiff in two civil lawsuits was not compensable from the Guardianship Fund because only a qualified

In re Amey

40 A.3d 902 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 5, 2012

Chen clearly appeared to be a woman and that neither Ms. Chen nor appellant had any object that “even remotely” looked like a taser. 1 The government then called Dr. … Schwartz referred in his testimony were clearly considered by Dr.

In Re Drury

683 A.2d 465 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 10, 1996

D.C.Bar Rule XI, § 11(c)(4) “provides for an exception to the imposition of reciprocal discipline where Bar Counsel or the attorney subject to discipline clearly demonstrates that ‘the misconduct established [in the proceeding … noted that "the [Hearing] Committee settled the issue by deciding that the ‘strong presumption’ in favor of reciprocal discipline in this case had to be overcome by 'clear evidence that the attorney was not suffering from a qualifying

In re D.T.

977 A.2d 346 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Jul 30, 2009

, Senior Judge: In this appeal from appellant’s adjudication of delinquency for assaulting a police officer with a deadly or dangerous weapon, D.C.Code § 22-405(b), we are presented with the question whether human teeth qualify … “In a bench trial, this court ‘will not reverse unless an appellant has established that the trial court’s factual findings are plainly wrong or without evidence to support them.’ ” Bacchus v.

Johnson v. United States

820 A.2d 551 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Apr 10, 2003

Both the parties and the court interpreted D.C.Code § 14-102 as codifying the established rule which allowed impeachment with such a statement. … Heard testified under a grant of immunity. 3 . In 1995 the Council of the District of Columbia rewrote the earlier version of this statute by creating three classes of statements that are not deemed to be hearsay.

Beckman v. District of Columbia Police & Firefighters' Retirement & Relief Board

810 A.2d 377 · District of Columbia Court of Appeals · Oct 24, 2002

Based on the evidence presented, Beckman clearly met . his burden or proving he was injured in the line of duty. … We see no reason to establish a different requirement for consideration of a treating psychologist who qualifies as an expert witness before the Board.