Examples of DC Court in a sentence
For example, if an attorney is licensed in Illinois, but works as an internal or corporate counsel in the District of Columbia, D.C. Court of Appeals Rule 49(c)(6) permits her to provide certain legal advice here.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923); D.C. Court of Appeals v.
Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413 (1923), and D.C. Court of Appeals v.
The 2007 BT Annual Report notes:66 In the 2007 financial year, operating costs, excluding leaver costs, were 4% higher at £3,289 million.
Argenbright Security, Inc., the D.C. Court of Appeals held that a store owner (Safeway Stores, Inc.) was not liable for negligent supervision of a security guard employed by a contractor (Argenbright Security, Inc.) who stopped a minor “on suspicion of shoplifting .
Similarly, in Boyk in, the D.C. Court of Appeals held that, even though the school employee’s job “necessarily included some physical contact” with students, “a sexual assault may [not] be deemed a direct outgrowth of a school official’s authorization to take a student by the hand or arm in guiding her past obstacles in the building.” Boyk in, 484 A.2d at 562.
District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317, 323 (D.C. 1980)).The D.C. Court of Appeals has considered “the requisite duty of care required for negligence” to be “a function of foreseeability, arising only when foreseeability is alleged commensurate with ‘the extraordinary nature of [intervening] criminal conduct.’” District of Columbia v.
The D.C. Court of Appeals affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of Shell because “[t]he attendant who fired the fatal shot was not an employee of Shell” and, thus, there was no “master-servant relationship.” Giles, 487 A.2d at 613.
It is not clear why the D.C. Court of Appeals first stated that specific proof that the gardener regularly ejected trespassers while armed was necessary, but then found that evidence of prior altercations could be sufficient by itself to find the employer liable.The D.C. Court of Appeals has confirmed this reading of Murphy in subsequent cases involving criminal misconduct and allegations of negligent hiring, supervision, and retention.
Shell Oil Corp., a case involving a suit against Shell fordamages arising from an incident in which a service station attendant fatally shot a boy, the D.C. Court of Appeals relied on Murphy to articulate the foreseeability standard applicable to claims of negligent hiring, retention, and supervision –– namely, whether “an employer knew or should have known its employee behaved in a dangerous or otherwise incompetent manner .