40 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1976–2022 3 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by District of Columbia courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Campbell v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996Id. (citations and internal quotation marks omitted); see also Wood v. Worachek, 618 F.2d 1225, 1229 (7th Cir.1980) ("relation back is generally permitted in order to correct a misnomer of a defendant where the proper defendant is already before the court and the effect is merely to correct the name under which he is sued"); Montalvo, supra, 426 F.2d at 1146 (rejecting, with Judge Irving Goldberg's tongue firmly planted in the judicial cheek, a party's earnest assertion that naming the Tower Life Building as the defendant, instead of the Tower Life Insurance Company, the owner of the building, 1996"Super.Ct.Civ.R. 15(c) is an adoption without modification of the corresponding federal rule and as such is to be given the same meaning.” Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 , 1297 n. 15 (D.C.1977) (citing Campbell v. United-States, 295 A.2d 498 (D.C.1972)). | 4 | 7 |
District of Columbia v. Jacksongreen2 sentences2021“When interpreting a Superior Court rule, we frequently find guidance in the advisory committee’s notes to the corresponding federal rule.” District of Columbia v. Jackson, 878 A.2d 489, 492 (D.C. 2005). 2020“When interpreting a Superior Court rule, we frequently find guidance in the advisory committee’s notes to the corresponding federal rule.” District of Columbia v. Jackson, 878 A.2d 489, 492 (D.C. 2005). 7 That guidance is especially pertinent here, as appellant has acknowledged that this jurisdiction’s Rule 12.2 “is based on the original federal rule 12.2.” (…continued) compelling a defendant who was not asserting an insanity or competency defense to submit to a mental examination. | 2 | 3 |
Ford v. ChartOne, Inc.green2 sentences2010“When interpreting a Superior Court rule, we frequently find guidance in the advisory committee’s notes to the corresponding federal rule.” See, e.g., Ford v. ChartOne, Inc., 834 A.2d 875, 879 (D.C.2003) (interpreting D.C.Super. 2005See, e.g., Ford v. ChartOne, Inc., 834 A.2d 875, 879 (D.C.2003) (interpreting D.C.Super. | 2 | 2 |
Goldkind v. Snider Bros., Inc.green2 sentences2010As our local rule derives from and substantially mirrors the corresponding federal rule of civil procedure, "we may look to federal court decisions interpreting the federal rule as persuasive authority in interpreting [the local rule].” Goldkind v. Snider Bros., Inc., 467 A.2d 468, 472 (D.C.1983) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 11 . 1986Super.CtCiv.R. 8(c) provides that “[i]n pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively ... [the] statute of limitations ... and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” The Superior Court rule is identical to Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; accordingly, “we may look to federal court decisions interpreting the federal rule as ‘persuasive authority in interpreting [the local rule].’ ” Goldkind v. Snider Brothers, Inc., supra, 467 A.2d at 472 , quoting from Vale Properties, Ltd. v. Canterbury Tales, Inc., 431 A.2d 11 , 13 n. 3 | 1 | 2 |
Allen v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2022Cir. 2019); see generally Allen v. United States, 495 A.2d 1145, 1149 (D.C. 1985) (en banc) (where the language of a local rule of procedure is identical to the language of the corresponding federal rule, “the interpretive gloss placed upon the federal rule by the federal courts guides our construction of the local rule”). 13 only motion for summary judgment (Michael’s) raised no challenge to the court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendants or the claims relating to the Virginia property, and (2) granted summary judgment in favor of Masomeh on all counts in the complaint, even though Maso | 1 | 1 |
Leeks v. Leeksgreen1 sentence2013See also Leeks v. Leeks, 316 A.2d 859 , 861 n. 3 (D.C.1974) (“[Rule 19 is] [(Identical to Fed.R.Civ.P. 19 except the last sentence of paragraph (a) of the federal rule, as to venue, is omitted.”). . | 1 | 1 |
Dorchester House Associates Ltd. Partnership v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commissiongreen1 sentence2009"Superior Court Rule 41 is 'substantially identical' to the corresponding federal rule and is 'to be construed in light of the meaning of that federal rule.’ " Dorchester House Associates Limited Partnership v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 913 A.2d 1260, 1265 (D.C.2006) (citing Waters v. Castillo, 755 A.2d 478, 481 (D.C.2000), and Taylor v. Washington Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
Waters v. Castillogreen1 sentence2009"Superior Court Rule 41 is 'substantially identical' to the corresponding federal rule and is 'to be construed in light of the meaning of that federal rule.’ " Dorchester House Associates Limited Partnership v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, 913 A.2d 1260, 1265 (D.C.2006) (citing Waters v. Castillo, 755 A.2d 478, 481 (D.C.2000), and Taylor v. Washington Hosp. | 1 | 1 |
Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union No. 730green1 sentence2005Adkins, 494 A.2d at 657 n. 5 (quoting Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union No. 730, 482 A.2d 801, 807 (D.C.1984)). 4 . | 1 | 1 |
Launay v. Launay, Inc.green1 sentence2002R. 41 is substantially identical to the corresponding federal rule, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 and, thus, we "constru[e] the local rule in light of federal cases interpreting the federal rule.” Clay v. Faison, 583 A.2d 1388 , 1391 n. 5 (D.C.1990); accord, Launay v. Launay, Inc., 497 A.2d 443 , 450 n. 7 (D.C.1985); Bazata v. National Ins. | 1 | 1 |
West v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000See Thomas, 586 A.2d at 1230 n. 3 (citing West v. United States, 346 A.2d 504 (D.C.1975)); Trezevant, 403 A.2d at 1136 n. 1. . | 1 | 1 |
Thomas v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000See Thomas, 586 A.2d at 1230 n. 3 (citing West v. United States, 346 A.2d 504 (D.C.1975)); Trezevant, 403 A.2d at 1136 n. 1. . | 1 | 1 |
Fairris v. Estellegreen1 sentence2000Ctr., 407 A.2d 585 , 590 & n. 4 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 1857 , 64 L.Ed.2d 275 (1980) (“A Superior Court rule which is literally or substantially identical to a corresponding federal rule (as in Super. | 1 | 1 |
| Scott v. Washingtongreen | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Economopoulosgreen1 sentence2000Ctr., 407 A.2d 585 , 590 & n. 4 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 1857 , 64 L.Ed.2d 275 (1980) (“A Superior Court rule which is literally or substantially identical to a corresponding federal rule (as in Super. | 1 | 1 |
| Tome v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| James Wood, Cross v. Allen Worachek, Crossgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Raul C. Montalvo v. Tower Life Building and Tower Life Insurance Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| cluster 564941green | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. Potomac Electric Power Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Garbincius v. Boston Edison Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Jean Lang v. Texas & Pacific Railway Company and Missouri-Pacific Railroad Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Ralston Oil and Gas Company v. Gensco, Inc., Gensco, Inc. v. Jack Ralston Oil & Gas Companygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Simpson v. Chesapeake & Potomac Telephone Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Stansel v. American Security Bankgreen | 1 | 1 |
| General William C. Westmoreland, Ambassador Richard Helms v. Cbs, Inc.green | 1 | 1 |
| Milton Properties, Inc. v. Newbygreen | 1 | 1 |
| Davis v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| In the Matter of CAPgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Sellars v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Strother v. District of Columbia
green
2 sentences2006Since they are “an adoption without modification of the corresponding federal rule, [they are] to be given the same meaning.” Arrington v. District of Columbia, 673 A.2d 674 , 680 n. 6 (D.C.1996) (citing Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 , 1297 n. 15 (D.C.1977)) (other citation omitted). 2001This court has said that because Rule 15(c) is " 'an adoption without modification of the corresponding federal rule,' ” it is to be " 'given the same meaning.’ " Arrington v. District of Columbia, 673 A.2d 674 , 680 n. 6 (D.C.1996) (quoting Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 , 1297 n. 15 (D.C.1977)). | 5 | 1982–2006 |
Ashcroft v. Iqbal
green
2 sentences2011We must therefore construe Superior Court Rule 8(a) consistent with Federal Rule 8(a) as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. *544 In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), the Supreme Court construed the pleading standard of Federal Rule 8(a): [T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. ... 2011We must therefore construe Superior Court Rule 8(a) consistent with Federal Rule 8(a) as interpreted by the Supreme Court of the United States. *544 In Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 , 129 S.Ct. 1937 , 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009), the Supreme Court construed the pleading standard of Federal Rule 8(a): [T]he pleading standard Rule 8 announces does not require “detailed factual allegations,” but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation. ... | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Behradrezaee v. Dashtara
green
2 sentences2011“We construe rules that are substantially identical to the corresponding federal rule in light of the meaning given to the federal rule.” Behradrezaee v. Dashtara, 910 A.2d 349 , 356 n. 8 (D.C.2006). 2011Consistent with the requirement of D.C.Code § 11-946, “[w]e construe rules that are substantially identical to the corresponding federal rule in light of the meaning given to the federal rule.” Behradrezaee v. Dashtara, 910 A.2d 349 , 356 n. 8 (D.C.2006). | 2 | 2011–2011 |
Taylor v. Washington Hospital Center
green
2 sentences2009Ctr., 407 A.2d 585 , 590 n. 4 (D.C.1979)). 4 . 2000Ctr., 407 A.2d 585 , 590 & n. 4 (D.C.1979), cert. denied, 446 U.S. 921 , 100 S.Ct. 1857 , 64 L.Ed.2d 275 (1980) (“A Superior Court rule which is literally or substantially identical to a corresponding federal rule (as in Super. | 2 | 2000–2009 |
Arrington v. District of Columbia
green
2 sentences2006Since they are “an adoption without modification of the corresponding federal rule, [they are] to be given the same meaning.” Arrington v. District of Columbia, 673 A.2d 674 , 680 n. 6 (D.C.1996) (citing Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 , 1297 n. 15 (D.C.1977)) (other citation omitted). 2001This court has said that because Rule 15(c) is " 'an adoption without modification of the corresponding federal rule,' ” it is to be " 'given the same meaning.’ " Arrington v. District of Columbia, 673 A.2d 674 , 680 n. 6 (D.C.1996) (quoting Strother v. District of Columbia, 372 A.2d 1291 , 1297 n. 15 (D.C.1977)). | 2 | 2001–2006 |
Vale Properties, Ltd. v. Canterbury Tales, Inc.
green
2 sentences1986Super.CtCiv.R. 8(c) provides that “[i]n pleading to a preceding pleading, a party shall set forth affirmatively ... [the] statute of limitations ... and any other matter constituting an avoidance or affirmative defense.” The Superior Court rule is identical to Rule 8(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; accordingly, “we may look to federal court decisions interpreting the federal rule as ‘persuasive authority in interpreting [the local rule].’ ” Goldkind v. Snider Brothers, Inc., supra, 467 A.2d at 472 , quoting from Vale Properties, Ltd. v. Canterbury Tales, Inc., 431 A.2d 11 , 13 n. 3 1983Because the local rule is identical to the corresponding federal rule, we may look to federal court decisions interpreting the federal rule as “persuasive authority in interpreting [the local rule].” Vale Properties, Ltd. v. Canterbury Tales, Inc., 431 A.2d 11 , 13 n. 3 (D.C.App.1981) (citations omitted). 5 . | 2 | 1983–1986 |
Thoubboron v. Ford Motor Co.
green
1 sentence2021Id. at 1210 n.6. | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Raskauskas v. Temple Realty Co.
green
1 sentence2013Rule 19 and the corresponding federal rule are substantially identical, and we therefore "look to authorities interpreting the federal rule.” Raskauskas v. Temple Realty Co., 589 A.2d 17 , 20 n. 2 (D.C.1991). | 1 | 2013–2013 |
McPherson v. District of Columbia Housing Authority
green
1 sentence2010McPherson, 833 A.2d at 994 (quoting Mova Pharm. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
In re AK. V.
green
1 sentence2010V., 747 A.2d 570 , 574 n. 10 (D.C.2000). 6 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Adkins v. Morton
green
1 sentence2005Adkins, 494 A.2d at 657 n. 5 (quoting Wallace v. Warehouse Employees Union No. 730, 482 A.2d 801, 807 (D.C.1984)). 4 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
Sparks v. United States
green
2 sentences2003Because the District of Columbia statute and the corresponding federal rule share the same text, this court in Sparks v. United States, 755 A.2d 394 (D.C.2000), interpreted section 14-102(b)(3) in light of federal court interpretations of the federal rule. 2003In Sparks we adopted the Supreme Court’s reasoning in United States v. Ow *558 ens, 484 U.S. 554, 562 , 108 S.Ct. 888 , 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988), that, “ ‘given adequate safeguards against suggestiveness, out-of-court identifications [are] generally preferable to courtroom identifications.’ ” Sparks, 755 A.2d at 399 (citing Owens). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
United States v. Owens
green
2 sentences2003In Sparks we adopted the Supreme Court’s reasoning in United States v. Ow *558 ens, 484 U.S. 554, 562 , 108 S.Ct. 888 , 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988), that, “ ‘given adequate safeguards against suggestiveness, out-of-court identifications [are] generally preferable to courtroom identifications.’ ” Sparks, 755 A.2d at 399 (citing Owens). 2003In Sparks we adopted the Supreme Court’s reasoning in United States v. Ow *558 ens, 484 U.S. 554, 562 , 108 S.Ct. 888 , 98 L.Ed.2d 951 (1988), that, “ ‘given adequate safeguards against suggestiveness, out-of-court identifications [are] generally preferable to courtroom identifications.’ ” Sparks, 755 A.2d at 399 (citing Owens). | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Bazata v. National Insurance Co. of Washington
green
1 sentence2002Co., 400 A.2d 313 , 314 n. 1 (D.C.1979). | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Clay v. Faison
green
1 sentence2002R. 41 is substantially identical to the corresponding federal rule, Fed.R.Civ.P. 41 and, thus, we "constru[e] the local rule in light of federal cases interpreting the federal rule.” Clay v. Faison, 583 A.2d 1388 , 1391 n. 5 (D.C.1990); accord, Launay v. Launay, Inc., 497 A.2d 443 , 450 n. 7 (D.C.1985); Bazata v. National Ins. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Trezevant v. Trezevant
green
1 sentence2000See Thomas, 586 A.2d at 1230 n. 3 (citing West v. United States, 346 A.2d 504 (D.C.1975)); Trezevant, 403 A.2d at 1136 n. 1. . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
| Settles v. United States green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Clifton Rhone v. United States of America, John S. Wilson v. United States green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Whitener v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority green | 1 | 1993–1993 |
| In the Matter of the Application of the United States Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations. Appeal of William Cammisano green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| United States v. George Gordon Liddy green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Liddy v. United States green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Berger v. North American Co. for Life & Health Insurance green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| O'Connell v. Kniskern green | 1 | 1990–1990 |
| Stevens v. Airline Pilots Ass'n International green | 1 | 1986–1986 |
| Quality Prefabrication, Inc. v. Daniel J. Keating Company green | 1 | 1985–1985 |
| Freeman v. Giacomo Costa Fu Andrea green | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.