Construction Defects In New Condominiums: Developer’s 2-Year Warranty For Structural Defects Cannot Be Disclaimed By “As Is” Language

By Catherine Park, Esq. Condominium developers must file a warranty bond or letter of credit or cash with the D.C. Government to cover potential structural defects in newly-constructed condominium units for a period of two years from the date of first sale.  This warranty, required by D.C. Code § 42-1903.16, cannot be disclaimed by “sold… Continue reading Construction Defects In New Condominiums: Developer’s 2-Year Warranty For Structural Defects Cannot Be Disclaimed By “As Is” Language

Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020: Proposed Legislation Clarifies D.C. Riot Act, Part 3

Photo: W. Brian Watkins, iStockPhoto

By Catherine Park, Esq. At the Council hearing on October 15, 2020, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) took the position that DC Bill 723 (“Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020”) does not merely “clarify” the current Riot Act but “changes the definition of rioting.”  The issue of the retroactive effect to be given a… Continue reading Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020: Proposed Legislation Clarifies D.C. Riot Act, Part 3

Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020: Proposed Legislation Clarifies D.C. Riot Act, Part 2

Photo: W. Brian Watkins, iStockPhoto

By Catherine Park, Esq. The Council hearing on October 15, 2020 covered not only the “Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020” (DC Bill 23-0723), but also the “Internationally Banned Chemical Weapon Prohibition Amendment Act of 2020” (DC Bill 23-0771), and “Comprehensive Policing and Justice Reform Amendment Act of 2020” (DC Bill 23-0882).  As to the… Continue reading Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020: Proposed Legislation Clarifies D.C. Riot Act, Part 2

Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020: Proposed Legislation Clarifies D.C. Riot Act, Part 1

Photo: W. Brian Watkins, iStockPhoto

By Catherine Park, Esq. D.C. Bill 723, “Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020,” is scheduled for a public hearing at the D.C. Council (via Webex) on October 15, 2020.  The bill seeks to “clarify the conduct that constitutes rioting ….”  By definition, a “clarify[ing]” law is intended to apply retroactively.  DC Bill 723’s most notable… Continue reading Rioting Modernization Amendment Act of 2020: Proposed Legislation Clarifies D.C. Riot Act, Part 1

D.C. v. Wesby: “Lurid Optics” Overwhelm Case

By Catherine Park, Esq. In District of Columbia v. Wesby, 138 S. Ct. 577, 199 L. Ed. 2d 453 (2018), the claim was false arrest.  The United States Supreme Court’s vote was 9-0 in favor of the police (the District of Columbia’s Metropolitan Police Department).  Apparently the arrestees conceded the unfavorable facts initially in their opposition to the… Continue reading D.C. v. Wesby: “Lurid Optics” Overwhelm Case

Abortion Clinics: Shareholder Liability

By Catherine Park, Esq. It is settled law that corporate officers can be held responsible for damage they cause, even if the corporation itself is also found responsible.  But what about shareholders of a corporation?  Courts with equity powers (such as the DC courts) will deprive shareholders of the privilege of operating as a corporation and assign… Continue reading Abortion Clinics: Shareholder Liability

Padilla v. Kentucky: U.S. Supreme Court Cautions Defense Attorneys To Warn Their Clients About The Deportation Risks of Pleading Guilty

Photo: Peggy Easterly, BigStockPhoto

By Catherine Park, Esq. In Padilla v. Kentucky, 559 U.S. 356 (2010), the U.S. Supreme Court made clear that defense counsel must warn a non-citizen client about possible deportation risks.  Padilla involved a non-citizen, Jose Padilla, a legal permanent resident of the U.S. for 40 years, who served with honor in the U.S. Armed Forces during Vietnam.  When… Continue reading Padilla v. Kentucky: U.S. Supreme Court Cautions Defense Attorneys To Warn Their Clients About The Deportation Risks of Pleading Guilty

Waiving Miranda Rights Through Ambiguous Conduct

Photo: Nick Canella, BigStockPhoto

By Catherine Park, Esq. A suspect must invoke his Miranda rights unambiguously, but can waive Miranda rights by acting ambiguously.   The U.S. Supreme Court held in the case of Berghuis v. Thompkins, 560 U.S. 370 (2010), that a suspect in custody who has been read his Miranda rights must invoke his right to remain silent unambiguously.  That is, if he… Continue reading Waiving Miranda Rights Through Ambiguous Conduct