Get above the noise
Log in for answers tailored to you — saved chats, your topics, and the full IJR suite.
Washington, D.C. Ass'n of Realtors v. District of Columbia
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012-05-24 · cited 8×
The case involved three real estate trade associations challenging the D.C. Council's transfer of over $3.2 million from the Real Estate Guarantee and Education Fund—a special fund financed by licensee fees to compensate victims of unlawful real estate practices—to the District's General Fund as part of emergency measures to balance the Fiscal Year 2009 budget amid revenue shortfalls. The associations argued that the transfer, along with resulting supplemental assessments on licensees, violated the Home Rule Act and the 1982 Real Estate Licensure Act that created the fund, and they sought declaratory and injunctive relief to reverse it. The Superior Court granted summary judgment to the District, and the D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed. The appeals court held that the Home Rule Act grants the Council broad authority to manage District finances and redirect monies from special funds to the General Fund, even when statutes designate those funds for specific purposes, and that the Licensure Act contained no language prohibiting such legislative action or creating vested rights in the fund's balance.
business & regulatoryfederal power
Scott v. Behavioral Research Associates, Inc.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012-05-17 · cited 7×
Denise Scott, a caregiver at a residential facility for disabled adults run by Behavioral Research Associates, Inc. (BRA), was fired after being unable to complete an in-person interview as part of BRA’s investigation into a resident-on-resident fight she had witnessed and reported. A claims examiner and an Administrative Law Judge denied her unemployment benefits on the ground that her non-cooperation amounted to gross misconduct. The D.C. Court of Appeals reversed that determination, holding that the record did not support a finding of gross misconduct because Scott had promptly filed a written report, made repeated but unsuccessful efforts to reschedule the interview, and visited the regulatory agency herself to give a statement, while BRA never informed her of the five-day deadline or returned her calls. The court further noted that unresolved factual disputes remained about whether Scott’s conduct constituted “simple” misconduct, which carries a lesser disqualification from benefits, and therefore remanded the case for additional findings on her eligibility.
labor & employmentprocedure
Diggs v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011-09-22 · cited 11×
In Diggs v. United States, Gonzales Diggs and Odell Griffin appealed their convictions for second-degree murder while armed, assault with a dangerous weapon, and related offenses stemming from a 2000 shooting in Southeast Washington, D.C., in which one victim was killed and another wounded during an attack on occupants of a stolen Jeep. The appellants primarily challenged the admission of a witness’s out-of-court statements to police and grand jury testimony, arguing that the witness’s claimed memory loss from brain damage rendered him unavailable for cross-examination under the Confrontation Clause and made the statements inadmissible hearsay; they also raised claims regarding limits on cross-examination, admission of documents without live testimony, severance, and (for Diggs) speedy trial violations from a seven-year delay. The D.C. Court of Appeals held that the witness’s statements were properly admitted because he was available for cross-examination despite his memory issues, and it rejected most other claims of error. The court affirmed the judgments except for reversing Diggs’s conviction for carrying a pistol without a license, which the government conceded was admitted in violation of the Confrontation Clause due to lack of testimony from the document’s preparer.
criminal lawprocedure
B.F. Saul Co. v. Tiefenbacher
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011-09-22 · cited 2×
In B.F. Saul Co. v. Tiefenbacher, a landlord appealed a Superior Court order denying its motion to release funds that tenants had paid into the court registry under a protective order during a pending suit for possession based on nonpayment of rent; the funds remained held while tenants pursued related administrative challenges. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction, holding that the order was not an appealable interlocutory ruling under D.C. Code § 11-721(a)(2) or as the practical equivalent of an injunction. The court reasoned that, although such protective-order rulings can resemble injunctions, the landlord had not demonstrated the “serious, perhaps irreparable, consequence” required by the two-prong Carson test applied in McQueen v. Lustine Realty Co. to justify immediate review before final judgment. This was the first time the court had addressed whether denial of a landlord’s motion to withdraw registry funds in these circumstances qualifies for interlocutory appeal.
propertyprocedure
Smith v. United States
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011-09-08 · cited 6×
In Smith v. United States, Michael Smith appealed his convictions for carrying a pistol without a license, possessing an unregistered firearm, and related ammunition and firearm charges after police recovered a gun from a bicycle he had been holding during a 2008 encounter in Washington, D.C. The trial court excluded testimony from Smith's proposed fingerprint expert, who would have stated that police violated an MPD Special Order by using a powder method rather than the required Superglue fuming technique to lift prints from a gun not found on Smith's person, and that the alternative method was superior. The District of Columbia Court of Appeals reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, holding that the exclusion constituted reversible error because the testimony was relevant to rebut the government's evidence on fingerprint recovery and to support a reasonable-doubt defense. The court reasoned that the expert evidence would have directly challenged the inference that the crime-scene officer performed her work adequately, consistent with precedent allowing such testimony when the government presents fingerprint evidence, and that its exclusion impaired Smith's Sixth Amendment right to present a defense.
gunscriminal lawprocedure
In Re Silva
District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2011-09-01
In the case of In re Theodore S. Silva, Jr., the D.C. Court of Appeals addressed disciplinary proceedings against an attorney who neglected a client's real estate easement agreement, then forged signatures and notarizations on a fake document, falsely represented to his client and law partner that it had been properly executed and recorded, and later made misrepresentations under oath during the disciplinary process about his cocaine addiction. The Board on Professional Responsibility found violations of multiple Rules of Professional Conduct, including criminal acts and intentional dishonesty, and recommended a three-year suspension with a fitness requirement for reinstatement. Bar Counsel urged disbarment instead. The court adopted the Board's recommendation, citing the strong presumption afforded to Board sanctions, consistency with prior cases involving document falsification and client deception that resulted in suspensions rather than disbarment, and the view that the misconduct did not rise to the level of "flagrant" dishonesty warranting permanent removal from the bar. The suspension period was set to begin on the date the respondent fully complied with the affidavit and notice requirements of D.C. Bar Rule XI, § 14.
criminal lawproperty