In re Tan, 148 A.3d 1175 (D.C. 2016). · Go Syfert
Search
In re Tan, 148 A.3d 1175 (D.C. 2016). Cases Citing This Book View Copy Cite
16 citation events (16 in the last 25 years) across 1 distinct court.
Top citers, strongest first. 2 distinct citers. How cited ↗
discussed Cited as authority (rule) Edwards v. United States
D.C. · 2023 · confidence medium
A concurring judge who deemed the division in Fleming to be bound by Roy v. United States nonetheless wrote separately to “explain the flaws with Roy’s causation reasoning and to call for en banc review to reject Roy’s gun-battle theory of guilt for murder.” Fleming, 148 A.3d at 1185 (Easterly, J., concurring in the judgment).
examined Cited as authority (rule) Fleming v. United States (10×) also: Cited "see"
D.C. · 2020 · confidence medium
The opinion for the division described the evidence at trial, Fleming, 148 A.3d at 1178-79, and we borrow freely from that description here.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
IN RE: Herbert J. TAN
Bar Registration No. 496860, DDN: 131-16; No. 16-BG-813.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals.
Nov 10, 2016.
148 A.3d 1175
Belson, Farrell, McLeese.
Published

ORDER

PER CURIAM

On consideration of the certified order disbarring respondent from the practice of law in the state of New Jersey, this court’s August 26, 2016, order directing respondent to show cause why reciprocal discipline should not be imposed, and the statement of Disciplinary Counsel, and it appearing that respondent has failed to file either a response to this court’s order to show cause or the affidavit required by D.C. Bar R. XI, § 14 (g), and it further appearing that respondent remains suspended pursuant to In re Tan, 119 A.3d 73 (D.C. 2015), it is

ORDERED that Herbert J. Tan is hereby disbarred from the practice of law. See In re Sibley, 990 A.2d 483 (D.C. 2010); In re Fuller, 930 A.2d 194, 198 (D.C. 2007) (rebuttable presumption of identical reciprocal discipline applies to all cases in which the respondent does not participate). It is

FURTHER ORDERED that for purposes of reinstatement the period of for reinstatement will not begin to run until such time as respondent files a D.C. Bar. R. XI, § 14 (g) affidavit.