Dellums v. Powell (1977)
green
· 129 citation events
across 16 courts.
Showing the 48 strongest citers on record
(one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 1977 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
197720012026
Sort:
By significance ·
Most recent
yellow
Mary Elizabeth Dean, Cross-Appellees v. Robert R. Gladney, Roel G. Saldivar and Leroy Maddox, Cross-Appellants (1980)
But see Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216 (D.C.Cir. 1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978).
yellow
John E. Jones v. City of Memphis, Tennessee (1978)
But see Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324 , 566 F.2d 216 (1977).
yellow
Rhodes v. City of Wichita (1981)
City of West Haven v. Turpin, 439 U.S. 974 , 99 S.Ct. 554 , 58 L.Ed.2d 645 (1978); Nix v. Sweeney, 573 F.2d 998 (8th Cir. 1978); Jamison v. McCurrie, 565 F.2d 483 (7th Cir. 1977); Kostka v. Hogg, 560 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1977); but cf. Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978) (District of Columbia held vicariously liable in Bivens action for acts of police chief), this Court believes that a proper reading…
yellow
Rhodes v. City of Wichita (1981)
City of West Haven v. Turpin, 439 U.S. 974 , 99 S.Ct. 554 , 58 L.Ed.2d 645 (1978); Nix v. Sweeney, 573 F.2d 998 (8th Cir. 1978); Jamison v. McCurrie, 565 F.2d 483 (7th Cir. 1977); Kostka v. Hogg, 560 F.2d 37 (1st Cir. 1977); but cf. Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978) (District of Columbia held vicariously liable in Bivens action for acts of police chief), this Court believes that a proper reading…
green
Honorable Ronald v. Dellums v. James M. Powell, Chief, United States Capitol Police, Jerry v. Wilson, Chief, … (1977)
Instruction No. 16, A. at 202 7 See Dellums v. Powell, --- U.S.App.D.C. ---- at ----, 566 F.2d 216 at 227, decided this day (". . . the insult of false arrest, any subsequent humiliation or mistreatment, and the duration of loss of liberty.") 8 Apton v. Wilson, 165 U.S.App.D.C. 22 , 506 F.2d 83 (1974) 9 Sullivan v. Murphy, 156 U.S.App.D.C. 28 , 478 F.2d 938 , cert. denied, 414 U.S. 880 , 94 S.Ct. 162 , 38 L.Ed.2d 125 (1973) 1 The coordinators of the May Day group felt that t…
green
Yassin Aref v. Loretta Lynch (2016)
See, e.g., Heck v. Humphrey, 512 U.S. 477, 484 , 114 S.Ct. 2364 , 129 L.Ed.2d 383 (1994) (“[A] successful malicious prosecution plaintiff may recover, in addition to general damages, compensation for ... loss of time and deprivation of the society.”); Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 277 (D.C.
affirming damage award for, among other relief, compensation for “the duration of loss of liberty” in a Fourth Amendment case
“The issue in a malicious prosecution case is not whether there was probable cause for the initial arrest, but whether there was probable cause for the underlying suit.” Pitt v. District of Columbia, 491 F.3d 494, 502 (D.C.Cir.2007); Dellums v. Powell (Dellums II), 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C.Cir. 1977) (noting that in the criminal context, “the critical event triggering liability for malicious prosecution is the filing of an information”).
noting that in the criminal context, “the critical event triggering liability for malicious prosecution is the filing of an information”
green
Young v. Quinlan (1992)
See Dean v. Gladney, 621 F.2d 1331, 1334 (5th Cir.1980) (citing cases); but compare, Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 223 (D.C.Cir.1977).
green
Young, II v. Quinlan (1992)
See Dean v. Gladney, 621 F.2d 1331, 1334 (5th Cir.1980) (citing cases); but compare, Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 223 (D.C.Cir.1977) We do not reach this issue.
green
Hobson v. Wilson (1982)
Cf. Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 333 , 566 F.2d 216, 225 (1977), *1173 cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3146 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978).
green
Harris-DeVaughn v. United States (2017)
In other words, the general employer remains liable for the employee if “he is performing the business entrusted to him by the general employer” even if “service [is also] rendered [to] another.” Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 221 (D.C.
green
Bradley v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2022)
Under District of Columbia law, “a person [who is] generally the servant of one master [i.e., the general employer,] can become the ‘borrowed’ servant of another[, i.e., the special employer].” Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C.
green
Bradley v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2020)
July 10, 2007) (quoting 10 Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C.
green
Bradley v. National Collegiate Athletic Association (2017)
In addition, District of Columbia cases have separately considered the borrowed servant doctrine as a defense to assigning liability for tortious conduct. *165 See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C.
applying the borrowed servant doctrine as a defense to vicarious liability
green
Daughtry v. Arlington County, Va. (1980)
Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 223 (D.C.
green
Bethel v. Rodriguez (2022)
Circuit has recognized, analyzing D.C. law, that in the criminal context “the critical event triggering liability for malicious prosecution is the filing of an information.” Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C.
green
Bethel v. Rodriguez (2021)
Circuit has recognized, analyzing D.C. law, that in the criminal context “the critical event triggering liability for malicious prosecution is the filing of an information.” Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C.
green
Shenk v. Mallinckrodt Plc (2018)
Cir. 1987) (“Courts have held that typicality is not destroyed by factual variations.”); Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 230 (D.C.
stating that the claims of the class representative must be typical of the class as a whole
green
Barryman-Turner v. District of Columbia (2015)
Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 230 (D.C.Cir.1977).
green
Moore v. United States (2015)
Dep’t of Corr., 755 F.3d 980, 992 (D.C.Cir.2014) (quoting Pitt v. District of Columbia, 491 F.3d 494, 502 (D.C.Cir. 2007) and Dellums v. Powell (Dellums II), 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C.Cir.1977)). 64 “In a civil action for malicious prosecution, probable cause is defined as the existence of ‘facts and circumstances as will warrant a cautious man in the belief that his action and the- means taken hi prosecuting it are legally just and proper.’ ” Pitt, 491 F.3d at 501 -02 (quoting…
green
Maldonado v. District of Columbia (2013)
See Brown v. United States, 742 F.2d 1498, 1506 (D.C.Cir.1984) (holding that § 12-309 is “simply a penalty for noncompliance”); Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 229 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“Nor is failure to give [§ 12 — ]309 notice a jurisdictional bar to suit [because] if such failure is not asserted as an affirmative defense it is waived.”). 8 Accordingly, the Court now holds that compliance with § 12-309 is not a jurisdictional requirement, and therefore the Court will not asses…
green
Giardino v. District of Columbia (2008)
R. v. Dist. of Columbia, 370 F.Supp.2d 267, 270 (D.D.C.2005) (citing Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 229 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“Nor is failure to give Section 309 notice a jurisdictional bar to suit [sic] if such failure is not asserted as an affirmative defense it is waived.”)).
green
Snowder v. District of Columbia (2008)
D.C. 324, 338, 566 F.2d 216, 230 (1977), wherein the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit concluded that an ACLU special counsel’s § 12-309 letter sufficed to give notice for an entire class of plaintiffs.
green
Kroll v. United States Capitol Police (1983)
Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 332-335 , 566 F.2d 216, 224-227 (1977), cert, denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978) (“Dellums IF)-, Dellums I, 184 U.S. App.D.C. at 283, 566 F.2d at 175.
green
Saffron v. Wilson (1979)
For the purpose of this decision, the Court assumes that the holding of Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 328-32 , 566 F.2d 216, 220-24 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“Deliums II”) that the District may be found vicariously liable for the constitutional torts of its *245 employees, has been overruled sub silentio by Monnell v. New York City Dept. of Social Services, 436 U.S. 653 , 98 S.Ct. 2018 , 56 L.Ed.2d 611 (1978), which rejected vicarious liability for actions under 42 U.S.C. §…
green
Breen v. District of Columbia (1979)
Shehyn v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 392 A.2d 1008 (1978) (conversion of property); Jenkins v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 379 A.2d 1177 (1977) (false arrest and malicious prosecution); Wilson v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 338 A.2d 437 (1975) (assault, battery, false arrest, and false imprisonment); Brown v. District of Columbia, D.C.App., 304 A.2d 292 (1973) (per curiam) (false arrest, false imprisonment, and assault); Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324, …
false imprisonment and malicious prosecution
green
Thomas v. District of Columbia (1979)
Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324 , 566 F.2d 216, 225 (1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3146 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978).
green
Pitts v. District of Columbia (1978)
Cf. Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 327 , 566 F.2d 216, 219 (1977).
green
Kenneth M. Brown, Riggie A. Lott and All Other Inmates That Have Been Subject to the Conditions in the Adjust… (1984)
See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 230 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3146 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978); Pitts v. District of Columbia, 391 A.2d 803, 807 (D.C.1978).
green
Ingalls Shipbuilding, Inc. v. The United States (1989)
See, e.g., Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 235 (D.C.Cir.1977); Kropp, 557 F.2d at 147 .
green
Hoyle Green, Individually and as Guardian of Takuye Green, Incompetent v. United States of America, and Third… (1983)
Schneider Enterprises, 41 Wis.2d 45, 50 , 163 N.W.2d 190, 193 (1968) (quoting same); accord Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 329 , 566 F.2d 216, 221 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 , reh'g denied, 439 U.S. 886 , 99 S.Ct. 234 , 58 L.Ed.2d 201 (1978); Dornan v. United States, 460 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1972).
green
Green v. United States (1983)
Schneider Enterprises, 41 Wis.2d 45, 50 , 163 N.W.2d 190, 193 (1968) (quoting same); accord Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 329 , 566 F.2d 216, 221 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 , reh’g denied, 439 U.S. 886 , 99 S.Ct. 234 , 58 L.Ed.2d 201 (1978); Doman v. United States, 460 F.2d 425, 428 (9th Cir.1972).
green
Raymond C. Rieser, Administrator for the Estate and Personal Representative of Rebecca A. Rieser v. District … (1977)
Accord, Hill v. District of Columbia, 345 A.2d 867, 869 (D.C.App.1975) 76 "The police report is an alternative form of notice added to '(take) care of those instances in which actual notice is had by the District of Columbia from the police department, although technical notice may not have been filed by the person injured.' " Miller v. Spencer, 330 A.2d 250, 252 (D.C.App.1974), quoting H.R.Rep.No.2010, 72d Cong., 2d Sess. 2 (1933) (emphasis by the Miller court) 77 Stone v. …
green
Rieser v. District of Columbia (1977)
See Thomas v. Potomac Electric Power Co., 266 F.Supp. 687, 693-94 (D.D.C.1967). “[S]trict construction is not required for Section 309 because the District has no sovereign immunity from liability for the non-discretionary acts of its employees.” Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. -, -, 566 F.2d 216 , 229 (1977).
green
Dellums v. Powell (1977)
See Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324, at 333-336 , 566 F.2d 216, at 225-228 (1977).
green
Honorable Ronald v. Dellums (Frederic J. Dieterle, Michael E. Roche, Bruce Aldrich, Appellees) v. James M. Po… (1977)
See Dellums v. Powell, --- U.S.App.D.C. ----, at ---- - ----, 566 F.2d 216 , at 225-228 (1977).
green
Romer v. District of Columbia (1982)
See Dellums v. Powell, 184 U.S.App.D.C. 324 , 566 F.2d 216 (1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3146 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978) (notice is sufficient under D.C.
green
Jones v. District of Columbia (2021)
Jaiyeola v. District of Columbia, 40 A.3d 356, 361 (D.C. 2012); see also Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 229 (D.C.
green
Hampton v. Comey (2016)
Cir. 2007); see also Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 220 (D.C.
noting that in the criminal context, “the critical event triggering liability for malicious prosecution is the filing of an information”
green
Jones v. District of Columbia (2012)
See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 229 (D.C.Cir.1977). 5 .
green
Wesby v. District of Columbia (2012)
See generally Wade v. District of Columbia, 310 A.2d 857, 863 (D.C.1973) (en banc); see also Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 223 (D.C.Cir.1977) (citing Wade, 310 A.2d at 857 ).
green
Pettiford v. City of Greensboro (2008)
Amoakohene v. Bobko, 792 F.Supp. 605, 609 (N.D.Ill.1992) 33 ; see Hellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 221-22 (D.C.Cir.1977) (holding that the borrowed servant doctrine is inappo-site where the District of Columbia and United States engage in mutual or joint law enforcement action); Chang v. United States, No. 02-2010(EGS), 2007 U.S. Dist.
green
Sperling v. WASHINGTON METROPOLITAN AREA TR. AUTH. (2008)
See, e.g., Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216 , 230 & n. 57 (D.C.Cir.1977) ("although we recognize that notice of a claim of false arrest cannot reasonably be found in a police report alone, we think Special Counsel's assertion of a claim coupled with the police reports gave the District all the notice to which it was lawfully entitled," even though the Special Counsel's letter may not have independently met the requirements of Section 12-309); Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Metr…
See, e.g., Del-lums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216 , 230 & n. 57 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“although we recognize that notice of a claim of false arrest cannot reasonably be found in a police report alone, we think Special Counsel’s assertion of a claim coupled with the police reports gave the District all the notice to which it was lawfully entitled,” even though the Special Counsel’s letter may not have independently met the requirements of Section 12-309); Mazloum v. Dist. of Columbia Met…
green
R. v. District of Columbia (2005)
See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 229 (D.C.Cir.1977) (“Nor is failure to give Section 309 notice a jurisdictional bar to suit [sic] if such failure is not asserted as an affirmative defense it is waived.”); see also Lerner v. District of Columbia, 362 F.Supp.2d 149, 166 (D.D.C.2005) (“The defense of failure to comply with D.C.Code § 12-309 is, like qualified immunity and the statute of limitations, an affirmative defense.”).
green
O'CALLAGHAN v. District of Columbia (1990)
See Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 223 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978); Wade v. District of Columbia, 310 A.2d 857, 863 (D.C.1973). 15 The police officers who recovered the Skylark, failed to notify plaintiff, and placed the vehicle in secret storage were doing just that.
green
Powell v. District of Columbia (1986)
See Washington, 429 A.2d at 1366 ; Brown v. District of Columbia, 304 A.2d at 293 ; see also Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 228 (D.C.Cir.1977) (plaintiffs letter was sufficient notice under § 12-309 for a false imprisonment claim where it included substantial information on the cause and nature of injuries suffered), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978).
See, e.g., Dellums v. Powell, 566 F.2d 216, 221 (D.C.Cir.1977), cert. denied, 438 U.S. 916 , 98 S.Ct. 3147 , 57 L.Ed.2d 1161 (1978). 15 .