hearing claim in District of Columbia

1993See id.; Gibson v. United States, 388 A.2d 1214, 1215 (D.C.1978).

1978Compare Gibson, supra; Johnson, supra; Session, supra. The trial court stated the applicable legal standard by which to measure Davis’ claim.

2023We therefore remand for the motions court to hold a hearing on this claim as well. 15 See Bruce, 617 A.2d at 995 (remanding for a 15 We acknowledge that Mr. Shepherd may face difficulty in showing that, but for this alleged deficiency alone, there was a “reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different.” Cosio, 927 A.2d at 1132 .

2023See Taylor v. District of Columbia, 606 F. Supp. 2d 93, 96 (D.D.C. 2009) (plaintiff failed to state due-process claim where plaintiff received notice expressly indicating plaintiff’s right to hearing and advising plaintiff how to request hearing).

2021In applying the first criterion, the CRB ruled that the AHD’s order did not “conclusively determine a [disputed] question of law.” 34 It said that the law answering whether WASA had “standing” to request a “Formal Hearing with AHD” was “well-established”; the employer “does have” such standing as an 31 See text accompanying supra note 3. 32 McNair Builders, Inc., 3 A.3d at 1136 (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 , 349–50 (2006)). 33 Mann, 150 A.3d at 1228 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 34 Id. 15 “interested party” with the right to “apply for a hearing on a claim.” 35 In

2021In applying the first criterion, the CRB ruled that the AHD’s order did not “conclusively determine a [disputed] question of law.” 34 It said that the law answering whether WASA had “standing” to request a “Formal Hearing with AHD” was “well-established”; the employer “does have” such standing as an 31 See text accompanying supra note 3. 32 McNair Builders, Inc., 3 A.3d at 1136 (quoting Will v. Hallock, 546 U.S. 345 , 349–50 (2006)). 33 Mann, 150 A.3d at 1228 (internal citations and quotation marks omitted). 34 Id. 15 “interested party” with the right to “apply for a hearing on a claim.” 35 In

2021Comm., 242 A.3d at 613 (declining to examine “in the first instance” whether plaintiffs could show they were likely to succeed on their claims, and instead remanding for trial court to hold a hearing and rule on that issue); see also, e.g., Folks v. District of Columbia, 93 A.3d 681, 686 (D.C. 2014) (“The trial court did not definitively resolve that issue.

2017While acknowledging that there is a presumption in favor of holding a hearing on 2 See Junior v. United States, 634 A.2d 411, 417 (D.C. 1993) (―[A] motion . . . filed before appellant was sentenced [cannot be] characterize[ed] . . . as [a] post-sentence § 23-110 [motion].‖). 3 In that motion, appellate counsel represented that post-trial counsel had ―indicated that he had lost Mr. Bethea‘s file.‖ 4 We do not infer from this sequence of events that Mr. Bethea or his counsel perceived it necessary to supplement the information presented in his first two motions in order to support and obtain a h

2007See id.

2001See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 , ___, 121 S.Ct. 1801, 1804 , 149 L.Ed.2d 983 (2001).

2001See Becker v. Montgomery, 532 U.S. 757 , ___, 121 S.Ct. 1801, 1804 , 149 L.Ed.2d 983 (2001).

1999See Wright v. United States, 608 A.2d 763, 766 (D.C.1992) (remanding for a hearing because claim was not palpably incredible).

1999See Wright v. United States, 608 A.2d 763, 766 (D.C.1992) (remanding for a hearing because claim was not palpably incredible).

1998See Sykes v. United States, 585 A.2d 1335, 1338-39 (D.C.1991).

1993See White v. United States, 484 A.2d 553, 558-89 (D.C.1984) (affirming denial of a hearing on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where failure to prepare alibi defense, which was supported by an affidavit of the alibi witness, was too vague to support claim of ineffective assistance and contradicted appellant’s testimony at trial). 6 Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed. .

1993See White v. United States, 484 A.2d 553, 558-89 (D.C.1984) (affirming denial of a hearing on claim of ineffective assistance of counsel where failure to prepare alibi defense, which was supported by an affidavit of the alibi witness, was too vague to support claim of ineffective assistance and contradicted appellant's testimony at trial). [6] Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is Affirmed.

1991Ellerbe v. United States, 545 A.2d 1197, 1198-99 (D.C.), cert. denied, 488 U.S. 868 , 109 S.Ct. 174 , 102 L.Ed.2d 144 (1988); Hockman v. United States, 517 A.2d 44 (D.C.1986).

1982The award of these exclusive rights is an “administrative proceeding ... concerned basically with weighing particular information and arriving at a decision directed at the rights of specific parties.” Schneider, supra at 326 , quoting Chevy Chase Citizens Association v. District of Columbia Council, D.C.App., 327 A.2d 310, 313 (1974) (en banc).

1982The award of these exclusive rights is an "administrative proceeding . . . concerned basically with weighing particular information and arriving at a decision directed at the rights of specific parties." Schneider, supra at 326 , quoting Chevy Chase Citizens Association v. District of Columbia Council, D.C.App., 327 A.2d 310, 313 (1974) (en banc).

1970Williams v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 206, 209 , 328 F.2d 178, 181 (1963).

1970Williams v. United States, 117 U.S.App.D.C. 206, 209 , 328 F.2d 178, 181 (1963).