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.
24 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1974–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Board of Regents of State Colleges v. Rothgreen2 sentences2020The party “must, instead, have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.” Id. 2011Consequently, “[t]o trigger due process protection in the area of public employment, an employee must ‘have a legitimate claim of entitlement to [the right or benefit].’ ” Leonard, 794 A.2d at 624 (quoting Roth, 408 U.S. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ). | 2 | 11 |
Swann v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016See Swann v. United States, 648 A.2d 928 , 930 n.7 (D.C. 1994) (noting that even when the other conditions of a self-defense claim are satisfied, "a defendant cannot claim self-defense if the defendant was the aggressor, or if s/he provoked the conflict upon himself/herself”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Andrews, 125 A.3d at 321 (“A legitimate claim of self-defense is not available to a defendant who voluntarily—knowingly and unnecessarily—placed himself in a position where he had reason to believe his presence would provoke the violence from which he then found it necessary to 2016Thus, to defeat appellant’s claim of self-defense and secure a conviction, the government needed to disprove at least one of the four aforementioned conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.7 6 See Swann v. United States, 648 A.2d 928 , 930 n.7 (D.C. 1994) (noting that even when the other conditions of a self-defense claim are satisfied, “a defendant cannot claim self-defense if the defendant was the aggressor, or if s/he provoked the conflict upon himself/herself”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Andrews, 125 A.3d at 321 (“A legitimate claim of self-defense is not available to a defe | 2 | 2 |
Brandon Andrews v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016See Swann v. United States, 648 A.2d 928 , 930 n.7 (D.C. 1994) (noting that even when the other conditions of a self-defense claim are satisfied, "a defendant cannot claim self-defense if the defendant was the aggressor, or if s/he provoked the conflict upon himself/herself”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Andrews, 125 A.3d at 321 (“A legitimate claim of self-defense is not available to a defendant who voluntarily—knowingly and unnecessarily—placed himself in a position where he had reason to believe his presence would provoke the violence from which he then found it necessary to 2016Thus, to defeat appellant’s claim of self-defense and secure a conviction, the government needed to disprove at least one of the four aforementioned conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.7 6 See Swann v. United States, 648 A.2d 928 , 930 n.7 (D.C. 1994) (noting that even when the other conditions of a self-defense claim are satisfied, “a defendant cannot claim self-defense if the defendant was the aggressor, or if s/he provoked the conflict upon himself/herself”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Andrews, 125 A.3d at 321 (“A legitimate claim of self-defense is not available to a defe | 2 | 2 |
Rorie v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016See Swann v. United States, 648 A.2d 928 , 930 n.7 (D.C. 1994) (noting that even when the other conditions of a self-defense claim are satisfied, "a defendant cannot claim self-defense if the defendant was the aggressor, or if s/he provoked the conflict upon himself/herself”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Andrews, 125 A.3d at 321 (“A legitimate claim of self-defense is not available to a defendant who voluntarily—knowingly and unnecessarily—placed himself in a position where he had reason to believe his presence would provoke the violence from which he then found it necessary to 2016Thus, to defeat appellant’s claim of self-defense and secure a conviction, the government needed to disprove at least one of the four aforementioned conditions beyond a reasonable doubt.7 6 See Swann v. United States, 648 A.2d 928 , 930 n.7 (D.C. 1994) (noting that even when the other conditions of a self-defense claim are satisfied, “a defendant cannot claim self-defense if the defendant was the aggressor, or if s/he provoked the conflict upon himself/herself”) (internal quotation marks omitted); see also Andrews, 125 A.3d at 321 (“A legitimate claim of self-defense is not available to a defe | 2 | 2 |
Brown v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2010“In order to invoke a legitimate claim of self-defense, a defendant must satisfy the following conditions: (1) there was an actual or apparent threat; (2) the threat was unlawful and immediate; (3) the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that he was in imminent danger of death or serious bodily harm; and (4) the defendant’s response was necessary to save himself from the danger.” Brown v. United States, 619 A.2d 1180, 1182 (D.C. 1992). 7 It cannot candidly be said that these criteria had been satisfied when appellant Mack slid the ice pick into his pocket and stepped out of his house in 2005In order to invoke a legitimate claim of self-defense, Scales must establish: “(1) there was an actual or apparent threat; (2) the threat was unlawful and immediate; (3) the defendant honestly and reasonably believed that he was in immi *343 nent danger of death or serious bodily harm; and (4) the defendant’s response was necessary to save himself from the danger.” Brown v. United States, 619 A.2d 1180, 1182 (D.C.1992). | 2 | 2 |
Katz v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2021Such inquiry requires examination of a person’s “actual (subjective) expectation of privacy,” Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347, 351 (1967) (Harlan, J. concurring), which in turn “society is prepared to recognize as ‘reasonable,’” rendering it a legitimate claim of privacy to be protected from governmental intrusion. 2021Id. at 361 ; see also Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143 n.12. | 1 | 1 |
Rakas v. Illinoisgreen1 sentence2021Id. at 361 ; see also Rakas, 439 U.S. at 143 n.12. | 1 | 1 |
Troy D. Richardson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2016See Swann, 648 A.2d at 930-33 ; see also Richardson, 98 A.3d at 187 n.11. | 1 | 1 |
Binion v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2005The right of self-defense “arises only when the necessity begins, and equally ends with the necessity .... ” Binion v. United States, 658 A.2d 187, 192-93 (D.C.1995) (internal marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Rones v. District of Columbia Department of Housing & Community Developmentgreen1 sentence1999Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972) (emphasis added) (quoted in Rones v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Hous. & Community Dev., 500 A.2d 998, 1001 (D.C.1985)). | 1 | 1 |
Olim v. Wakinekonagreen2 sentences1996See Olim, 461 U.S. at 250-51 , 103 S.Ct. at 1748 . 1996See Olim, 461 U.S. at 250-51 , 103 S.Ct. at 1748 . | 1 | 1 |
McPhaul v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1992United States v. Peterson, supra, 157 U.S.App.D.C. at 226-27 , 483 F.2d at 1229-30 ; McPhaul v. United States, 452 A.2d 371, 373 (D.C.1982). | 1 | 1 |
Christian J. Camenisch, II v. United States of Americagreen2 sentences1982Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1971); see Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601-02 , 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2700 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Camenisch v. United States, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 97, 100 , 553 F.2d 1271, 1273, 1276 (1976). 1982Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1971); see Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601-02 , 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2700 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Camenisch v. United States, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 97, 100 , 553 F.2d 1271, 1273, 1276 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Sindermanngreen2 sentences1982Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1971); see Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601-02 , 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2700 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Camenisch v. United States, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 97, 100 , 553 F.2d 1271, 1273, 1276 (1976). 1982Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701, 2709 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1971); see Perry v. Sindermann, 408 U.S. 593, 601-02 , 92 S.Ct. 2694, 2700 , 33 L.Ed.2d 570 (1972); Camenisch v. United States, 180 U.S.App.D.C. 95, 97, 100 , 553 F.2d 1271, 1273, 1276 (1976). | 1 | 1 |
Middleton v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1982Middleton v. United States, D.C.App., 401 A.2d 109, 125 (1979); Kitt v. United States, D.C.App., 379 A.2d 973 (1977). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Leonard v. District of Columbia
green
2 sentences2011Consequently, “[t]o trigger due process protection in the area of public employment, an employee must ‘have a legitimate claim of entitlement to [the right or benefit].’ ” Leonard, 794 A.2d at 624 (quoting Roth, 408 U.S. at 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 ). 2006“To trigger due process protection in the area of public employment, an employee must ‘have a legitimate claim of entitlement to it.’ ” Leonard, 794 A.2d at 624 (quoting Board of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 577 , 92 S.Ct. 2701 , 33 L.Ed.2d 548 (1972)). | 2 | 2006–2011 |
Watson v. Price
green
2 sentences2010Neither of the "two basic reasons supportive of the rule" given by the Alabama court is present in this case, where the disputed property is no mere *661 "small, land-locked parcel[]” that the prede-cessory "ordinarily[] intended to convey,” id., nor is this a case where the party resisting the claim of ownership by adverse possession (i.e., the Archdiocese) had no interest in making a legitimate claim for itself. 2010Id. at 628 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Matter of Addams
green
2 sentences1997Because disbarment for misappropriation is the norm unless it resulted from simple negligence, see In re Addams, 579 A.2d at 191 , it is important, in determining the appropriate sanction, to ascertain whether Haar in fact had a legitimate claim to the settlement proceeds as such, i.e., whether lawyer and client had an understanding that, whatever the attorney's fee turned out to be, it would come from the $20,000 settlement proceeds. 1997Because disbarment for misappropriation is the norm unless it resulted from simple negligence, see In re Addams, 579 A.2d at 191 , it is important, in determining the appropriate sanction, to ascertain whether Haar in fact had a legitimate claim to the settlement proceeds as such, i.e., whether lawyer and client had an understanding that, whatever the attorney’s fee turned out to be, it would come from the $20,000 settlement proceeds. | 1 | 1997–1997 |
United States v. Santos Flores-Elias
green
1 sentence1993United States v. Flores-Elias, 650 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 904 , 102 S.Ct. 412 , 70 L.Ed.2d 223 (1981). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Mathews v. Eldridge
green
2 sentences1993Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); see also Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 574-75, 92 S.Ct. at 2708 . 1993Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 334-35 , 96 S.Ct. 893, 902 , 47 L.Ed.2d 18 (1976); see also Roth, supra, 408 U.S. at 574-75, 92 S.Ct. at 2708 . | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Board of Education of the North Little Rock, Arkansas School District, Et Al. v. Davis Et Al.
green
1 sentence1993United States v. Flores-Elias, 650 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 904 , 102 S.Ct. 412 , 70 L.Ed.2d 223 (1981). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Patterson v. United States
green
1 sentence1993United States v. Flores-Elias, 650 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 904 , 102 S.Ct. 412 , 70 L.Ed.2d 223 (1981). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
Molina v. United States
green
1 sentence1993United States v. Flores-Elias, 650 F.2d 1149 (9th Cir.), cert. denied, 454 U.S. 904 , 102 S.Ct. 412 , 70 L.Ed.2d 223 (1981). | 1 | 1993–1993 |
United States v. Bennie L. Peterson
green
2 sentences1992United States v. Peterson, supra, 157 U.S.App.D.C. at 226-27 , 483 F.2d at 1229-30 ; McPhaul v. United States, 452 A.2d 371, 373 (D.C.1982). 1992United States v. Peterson, supra, 157 U.S.App.D.C. at 226-27 , 483 F.2d at 1229-30 ; McPhaul v. United States, 452 A.2d 371, 373 (D.C.1982). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Thompson v. United States
green
2 sentences1990Thompson, supra, 546 A.2d at 420 . 16 Such a determination is confided to the sound discretion of the trial court. 1990Thompson, supra, 546 A.2d at 420 . 16 Such a determination is confided to the sound discretion of the trial court. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Kitt v. United States
green
1 sentence1982Middleton v. United States, D.C.App., 401 A.2d 109, 125 (1979); Kitt v. United States, D.C.App., 379 A.2d 973 (1977). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Angarano v. United States
green
2 sentences1974Presumably it is intended that new PDS *470 counsel will enter an appearance in this case. [ 312 A.2d at 298 n. 2; emphasis added.] Does the court really mean that if on appeal one partner in a law firm considers there is a legitimate claim to be made that he was ineffective at trial he merely turns the case over to his partner to attack his conduct of the trial and the ethical question vanishes? 1974Presumably it is intended that new PDS counsel will enter an appearance in this case. [ 312 A.2d at 298 n. 2; emphasis added.] Does the court really mean that if on appeal one partner in a law firm considers there is a legitimate claim to be made that he was ineffective at trial he merely turns the case over to his partner to attack his conduct of the trial and the ethical question vanishes? | 1 | 1974–1974 |
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.