green
Positive treatment
Quoted verbatim 1×
5.9 score
“a deviation greater than three times the standard 398 deviation is prima facie proof that the selection system is not random ...”
Treatment trajectory · 1983 → 2026 · click a year to view as-of
1983
2004
2026
Top citers, strongest first. 8 distinct citers.
How cited ↗
discussed
Cited as authority (quoted)
Gilbert Rendon, Cross-Appellant. And Joe Mike Zepeda, Intervenor-Plaintiffs-Appellees, Cross-Appellants v. At & T Technologies, Cross-Appellee
a deviation greater than three times the standard 398 deviation is prima facie proof that the selection system is not random ...
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re McLain
(2×)
See In re James, 452 A.2d 163, 166-67 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1038 , 103 S.Ct. 1429 , 75 L.Ed.2d 789 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
Arnold D. Berkeley v. Home Insurance Company
(2×)
See In re James, 452 A.2d 163, 166 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1038 , 103 S.Ct. 1429 , 75 L.Ed.2d 789 (1983).
examined
Cited "see"
In Re Ontell
(3×)
See In re James, 452 A.2d 163, 168-69 (D.C.1982) (attorney waived judicial *1041 review of claim of inadequate notice because of failure to raise argument at Hearing Committee or Board level), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1038 , 103 S.Ct. 1429 , 75 L.Ed.2d 789 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see"
In Re Hines
See In re James, 452 A.2d 163 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1038 , 103 S.Ct. 1429 , 75 *383 L.Ed.2d 789 (1983); In re O’Bryant, 425 A.2d 1313 (D.C.1981). 15 IV Respondent also maintains that the hearing committee erred in failing to sever the two cases, arguing that one case (which he does not identify) exerted a “prevailing influence” on the other.
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Soininen
(2×)
In a contention which is being made for the first time before this court, Ms. Soininen asserts that the court does not have jurisdiction over her unauthorized practice because "no one has claimed [that it] occurred in the District of Columbia.” "We have consistently held that an attorney who fails to present a point to the Board waives that point and cannot be heard to raise it for the first time here.” In re Abrams, 689 A.2d at 9 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted); see also In re James, 452 A.2d 163, 168-69 (D.C. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1038 , 103 S.Ct. 1429 , 75 L.Ed.2…
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re D'Onofrio
(2×)
See, e.g., In re James, 452 A.2d 163, 170 (D.C. 1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1038 , 103 S.Ct. 1429 , 75 L.Ed.2d 789 (1983).
discussed
Cited "see, e.g."
In Re Schneider
(2×)
See also In re James, 452 A.2d 163 (D.C.1982), cert. denied, 460 U.S. 1038 , 103 S.Ct. 1429 , 75 L.Ed.2d 789 (1983), where we talked about "scienter” as an element of a DR 1-102(A)(4) violation.
Retrieving the full opinion text from the archive…
Dotson
v.
Mountain Mission School, Inc.
v.
Mountain Mission School, Inc.
No. 82-1164.
Supreme Court of the United States.
Mar 21, 1983.
Published
Citer courts: Fifth Circuit (1)
C. A. 4th Cir. Certiorari denied.