Thomas v. United States
824 A.2d 26, 2003 D.C. App. LEXIS 290, 2003 WL 21198042
Opinions
The judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in Judge Schwelb’s lead concurring opinion, except with respect to the issue discussed in Judge Farrell’s concurring opinion and in Part I of Judge Ruiz’ dissenting opinion. As to that issue, the judgment is affirmed for the reasons stated in Judge Farrell’s opinion and in footnote 13 to Judge Schwelb’s opinion.
Affirmed.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Thomas v. United States, 824 A.2d 26, 2003 D.C. App. LEXIS 290, 2003 WL 21198042 (D.C. 2003).
824 A.2d 26 (Thomas v. United States) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.
Related
Hobbs v. United States
18 A.3d 796 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2011)
Scott v. United States
953 A.2d 1082 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2008)
Hinton v. United States
951 A.2d 773 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2008)
Williams v. United States
858 A.2d 984 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2004)
Whitney v. State
857 A.2d 625 (Court of Special Appeals of Maryland, 2004)
Watkins v. United States
846 A.2d 293 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2004)
Thomas v. United States
824 A.2d 26 (District of Columbia Court of Appeals, 2003)