Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2023 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
Blackson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2023See generally Jessup, 757 F.2d at 380-85 ; see also Blackson v. United States, 897 A.2d 187, 196 (D.C. 2006) (confirming that it is “the government’s burden to prove future dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence” for detention under § 23-1322)(c)). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Mark Jessupred1 sentence2023See generally Jessup, 757 F.2d at 380-85 ; see also Blackson v. United States, 897 A.2d 187, 196 (D.C. 2006) (confirming that it is “the government’s burden to prove future dangerousness by clear and convincing evidence” for detention under § 23-1322)(c)). | 1 | 1 |
Connecticut National Bank v. Germaingreen1 sentence2021The word “deadline” is not a term of art with a specialized meaning; it simply means “the latest time by which something must be done.” 42 Appellants assert that the 100-day mark is “not a date ‘before which something must be done,’ but [rather] a date at which the court’s authority to deprive a [detained] 41 Connecticut Nat’l Bank v. Germain, 503 U.S. 249 , 253-54 (1992) (“[I]n interpreting a statute a court should always turn first to one, cardinal canon before all others. | 1 | 1 |
Farrell v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2009See Farrell v. United States, 646 A.2d 963 (D.C.1994) (commitment for 60-day evaluation related to competency to stand trial meets the Cohen standard). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Williamsgreen1 sentence1997The trial court relied on United States v. Williams, 798 F.Supp. 34, 36 (D.D.C.1992) for the proposition that Tyler could not present evidence about the indicted charges. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Edwards
green
2 sentences1997For example, in United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 1721 , 72 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982), we decided the constitutionality of pretrial detention pursuant to D.C.Code § 23-1322(a)(1) (1973), the predecessor provision of the one under which appellant here was originally detained. 1997For example, in United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 1721 , 72 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982), we decided the constitutionality of pretrial detention pursuant to D.C.Code § 23-1322(a)(l) (1973), the predecessor provision of the one under which appellant here was originally detained. | 2 | 1992–1997 |
Covington v. United States
green
1 sentence2012We did so in Covington v. United States, 698 A.2d 1033 (D.C.1997). | 1 | 2012–2012 |
Lynch v. United States
green
2 sentences1997The express statutory language requiring "clear and convincing evidence” has superseded the question left open in Lynch, supra, 557 A.2d at 582 n. 4, as to whether Salerno requires clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness as a matter of due process before a person may he detained pretrial under § 23-1322(b). . 1997The express statutory language requiring "clear and convincing evidence” has superseded the question left open in Lynch, supra, 557 A.2d at 582 n. 4, as to whether Salerno requires clear and convincing evidence of dangerousness as a matter of due process before a person may he detained pretrial under § 23-1322(b). . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Edwards v. United States
green
2 sentences1997For example, in United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 1721 , 72 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982), we decided the constitutionality of pretrial detention pursuant to D.C.Code § 23-1322(a)(l) (1973), the predecessor provision of the one under which appellant here was originally detained. 1997For example, in United States v. Edwards, 430 A.2d 1321 (D.C.1981) (en banc), cert. denied, 455 U.S. 1022 , 102 S.Ct. 1721 , 72 L.Ed.2d 141 (1982), we decided the constitutionality of pretrial detention pursuant to D.C.Code § 23-1322(a)(l) (1973), the predecessor provision of the one under which appellant here was originally detained. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
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.