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.
5 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1910–2021 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
UNITED STATES v. DAVID D. LEWISgreen2 sentences2021In response to the trial court’s indication that it would not rule on probable cause, the prosecutor stated that he “had further argument” that he would forgo “as long as you’re not making that ruling.” The court also did not make definitive findings as to whether Officer Branson’s search was justified by other exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as plain feel if it was “immediately apparent” that the item was “obvious contraband” and gave the officer probable cause to seize it, see Ball v. United States, 803 A.2d 971 , 974-75 (D.C. 2002), or probable cause to arrest, which would have 2021In response to the trial court’s indication that it would not rule on probable cause, the prosecutor stated that he “had further argument” that he would forgo “as long as you’re not making that ruling.” The court also did not make definitive findings as to whether Officer Branson’s search was justified by other exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as plain feel if it was “immediately apparent” that the item was “obvious contraband” and gave the officer probable cause to seize it, see Ball v. United States, 803 A.2d 971 , 974-75 (D.C. 2002), or probable cause to arrest, which would have | 1 | 1 |
Jones v. Williamsgreen1 sentence2007Jones v. Williams, 861 A.2d 1269, 1270 (D.C.2004), as amended by 890 A.2d 178 (D.C.2005). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ball v. United States
green
1 sentence2021In response to the trial court’s indication that it would not rule on probable cause, the prosecutor stated that he “had further argument” that he would forgo “as long as you’re not making that ruling.” The court also did not make definitive findings as to whether Officer Branson’s search was justified by other exceptions to the warrant requirement, such as plain feel if it was “immediately apparent” that the item was “obvious contraband” and gave the officer probable cause to seize it, see Ball v. United States, 803 A.2d 971 , 974-75 (D.C. 2002), or probable cause to arrest, which would have | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Jones v. Williams
neutral
1 sentence2007Jones v. Williams, 861 A.2d 1269, 1270 (D.C.2004), as amended by 890 A.2d 178 (D.C.2005). | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Whitaker v. United States
green
1 sentence2003Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord
green
2 sentences1982We note that while the Supreme Court has ruled that a pretrial order denying a motion to disqualify counsel in a civil case is not ap-pealable under Cohen , the Court declined to rule on whether pretrial orders granting motions to disqualify are appealable under Cohen, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 , 101 S.Ct. 669 , 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981). 1982We note that while the Supreme Court has ruled that a pretrial order denying a motion to disqualify counsel in a civil case is not ap-pealable under Cohen , the Court declined to rule on whether pretrial orders granting motions to disqualify are appealable under Cohen, Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. v. Risjord, 449 U.S. 368 , 101 S.Ct. 669 , 66 L.Ed.2d 571 (1981). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
State v. Housekeeper
green
2 sentences1910Sheldon v. Wright, 80 Vt. 298 , 67 Atl. 807 ; State use of Janney v. Housekeeper, 70 Md. 162 , 2 L.R.A. 587 , 14 Am. 1910Sheldon v. Wright, 80 Vt. 298 , 67 Atl. 807 ; State use of Janney v. Housekeeper, 70 Md. 162 , 2 L.R.A. 587 , 14 Am. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
Sheldon v. Wright
green
2 sentences1910Sheldon v. Wright, 80 Vt. 298 , 67 Atl. 807 ; State use of Janney v. Housekeeper, 70 Md. 162 , 2 L.R.A. 587 , 14 Am. 1910Sheldon v. Wright, 80 Vt. 298 , 67 Atl. 807 ; State use of Janney v. Housekeeper, 70 Md. 162 , 2 L.R.A. 587 , 14 Am. | 1 | 1910–1910 |
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.