A F. Burgess jr

In this case, petitioner Donnelly Associates challenged a decision by the District of Columbia Historic Preservation Review Board to designate two properties it owned as historic landmarks under the D.C. Historic Landmark and Historic District Preservation Act, which restricts demolition or alteration without a permit. The Review Board had acted on an application from a preservation group after Donnelly had contracted to purchase the properties with plans to demolish them for new construction. The court held that it lacked jurisdiction to review the designation decision itself and dismissed the petition. The core reasoning was that the Act provides for judicial review only of the Mayor's subsequent decisions on permit applications following a public hearing under the D.C. Administrative Procedure Act, not of the Review Board's initial landmark designations.

propertyprocedure

In Jones v. United States, the appellant was convicted after a jury trial of armed robbery based on evidence that he and an accomplice robbed several victims at a bus stop, including taking a wallet and striking one victim, with the appellant later arrested near a getaway car containing stolen items. The appellant challenged the conviction on appeal, arguing that the trial court erred by limiting cross-examination of a government witness, admitting testimony about out-of-court identifications, permitting impeachment with prior convictions, and restricting closing argument. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reviewed the claims, found each to be without merit, and affirmed the conviction and indeterminate sentence of six to eighteen years.

criminal lawprocedure

In Joyner v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services, the petitioner challenged the termination of her workers’ compensation benefits after the Department of Employment Services (DOES) found that she was no longer disabled under D.C. Code § 36-308(c) because she had voluntarily limited her income or failed to accept suitable employment. The case arose after Joyner, who had injured her back in 1982 while working in the District, moved multiple times including to California and did not pursue job opportunities identified in the D.C. area that were deemed appropriate by a vocational expert and consistent with her physician’s restrictions. DOES interpreted the statute to require consideration of the D.C. labor market rather than the claimant’s current residence. The court affirmed the agency’s decision, holding that its interpretation of the statute was reasonable and that the order was supported by substantial evidence, including medical reports and expert testimony on available jobs.

labor & employment