burden of demonstrating error (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

burden of demonstrating error in District of Columbia

18 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1985–2024 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.

Followed or applied (7)

CaseFollowedCited
Cohen v. Rental Housing Commissiongreen
dc · 1985 · cited in 10 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1986–2006
2 sentences

2006Furthermore, we “ ‘start from the premise that the agency’s decision, like the decision of a trial court, is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant or petitioner who challenges the decision.’ ” Hoage v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 714 A.2d 776, 781 (D.C.1998) (quoting Cohen v. Rental Housing Comm’n, 496 A.2d 603, 605 (D.C.1985)).

1999While “[n]o person shall vote on any post-hearing motion unless the member participated in and voted on the original decision, or the member read the transcript of the hearings and reviewed the record,” 11 DCMR § 3332.8, “we start from the premise that the agency’s decision, like the decision of a trial court, is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant or petitioner who challenges the decision.” Cohen v. Rental Housing Comm’n, 496 A.2d 603, 605 (D.C.1985) (citation omitted).

810
Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., Inc.green
dc · 1982 · cited in 3 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1985–1998
2 sentences

1992If there were such evidence of record, it is appellant who has the burden of demonstrating error and producing "a record sufficient to show affirmatively that error occurred." See Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., Inc., 453 A.2d 110, 111 (D.C.1982); see also Tung v. W.T.

1992If there were such evidence of record, it is appellant who has the burden of demonstrating error and producing “a record sufficient to show affirmatively that error occurred.” See Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., Inc., 453 A.2d 110, 111 (D.C.1982); see also Tung v. W.T.

33
Union Market Neighbors v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission and Foulger-Pratt Development, LLCgreen
dc · 2018 · cited in 3 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2019–2024
2 sentences

2019Neighbors v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n (" UMN I"), 197 A.3d 1063 , 1067 (D.C. 2018) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). "[T]he agency's decision ... is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of demonstrating error is on the ... petitioner who challenges the decision." Id. at 1068 (internal quotation marks omitted).

2019Neighbors v. District of Columbia Zoning Comm'n (" UMN I"), 197 A.3d 1063 , 1067 (D.C. 2018) (internal quotation marks and brackets omitted). "[T]he agency's decision ... is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of demonstrating error is on the ... petitioner who challenges the decision." Id. at 1068 (internal quotation marks omitted).

23
Robinson v. Smithgreen
dc · 1996 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997“In considering petitioner’s argument that the [agency] decision is not supported by reliable, probative, and substantial evidence in the record, see D.C.Code §§ 1-1509(e), -1510(a)(3)(E) (1992 Repl.), we begin with the premise that the agency’s decision ‘is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant or petitioner who challenges the decision.’ ” Robinson v. Smith, 683 A.2d 481, 487 (D.C.1996) (quoting Cohen v. Rental Housing Comm’n, 496 A.2d 603, 605 (D.C.1985)).

1997Thus, “[i]n considering [Mr. Kolson’s] argument that the [agency] decision is not supported by reliable, probative, substantial evidence in the record, see D.C.Code §§ l-1509(e), - 1510(a)(3)(E) (1992 Repl.), we begin with the premise that the agency’s decision ‘is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant or petitioner who challenges the decision.’” Robinson v. Smith, 683 A.2d 481, 487 (D.C. 1996) (quoting Cohen v. Rental Housing Comm’n, 496 A.2d 603, 605 (D.C.1985)).

22
Hoage v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of DCgreen
dc · 1998 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2006–2018
2 sentences

2018Appeals , 912 A.2d 1181 , 1184 (D.C. 2006) (quoting Hoage v. Board of Trs. of the Univ. of the District of Columbia , 714 A.2d 776 , 781 (D.C. 1998) ).

2006Furthermore, we “ ‘start from the premise that the agency’s decision, like the decision of a trial court, is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant or petitioner who challenges the decision.’ ” Hoage v. Board of Trustees of the Univ. of the District of Columbia, 714 A.2d 776, 781 (D.C.1998) (quoting Cohen v. Rental Housing Comm’n, 496 A.2d 603, 605 (D.C.1985)).

12
Cooper v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen
dc · 1991 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
2 sentences

1997Cooper v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 588 A.2d 1172, 1174 (D.C. 1991) (noting the agency decision is presumed to be correct and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating error).

1997Cooper v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 588 A.2d 1172, 1174 (D.C.1991) (noting the agency decision is presumed to be correct and the petitioner bears the burden of demonstrating error).

11
Grayson v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen
dc · 1986 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1997–1997
1 sentence

1997“In order to receive workers’ compensation, an injury must both arise out of and occur within the course of the employment.” Grayson v. Department of Employment Services, 516 A2d 909, 911 (D.C.1986) (citations omitted).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (4)

CaseCitedYears
Johnson v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals green
dc · 2006
2 sentences

2019Appeals , 912 A.2d 1181 , 1184 (D.C. 2006) ).

2018Appeals , 912 A.2d 1181 , 1184 (D.C. 2006) (quoting Hoage v. Board of Trs. of the Univ. of the District of Columbia , 714 A.2d 776 , 781 (D.C. 1998) ).

22018–2019
Sinobia Newell-Brinkley v. Diana Haines Walton green
dc · 2014
1 sentence

2019Although we "generally cannot uphold an agency decision on grounds other than those actually relied upon by the agency[,]" Newell-Brinkley v. Walton , 84 A.3d 53 , 59 (D.C. 2014) (internal quotation marks omitted), we "should uphold a decision of less than ideal clarity if the agency's path may reasonably be discerned," Kamit Inst. for Magnificent Achievers v. District of Columbia Pub.

12019–2019
Durant v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission green
dc · 2013
1 sentence

2019An agency's decision "is presumed to be correct, so that the burden of demonstrating error is on the appellant or petitioner who challenges the decision." Id. (quoting Johnson v. District of Columbia Office of Emp.

12019–2019
Hsue Tung v. W.T. Cabe & Co. green
dc · 1985
2 sentences

1992Cabe & Co., Inc., 492 A.2d 267 , 269-70 n. 4 (D.C. 1985).

1992Cabe & Co., Inc., 492 A.2d 267 , 269-70 n. 4 (D.C.1985).

11992–1992

Where else courts name it

CA 159 (1969–2026) OH 149 (1995–2026) MO 144 (1969–2022) TX 29 (1999–2026) AR 28 (1976–2007) GA 25 (1984–2025) DC 18 (1985–2024) VA 16 (1999–2020) SC 15 (2011–2016) FL 15 (1963–2024) MN 14 (1999–2025) NY 13 (1979–2019) ME 12 (1977–2023) KS 12 (2012–2025) NM 11 (1985–2025) WA 11 (1980–2025) ID 11 (1977–2022) UT 9 (1991–2025) AZ 8 (1970–2025) IN 8 (1985–2023) IL 6 (1999–2017) PA 5 (1971–2018) AL 5 (1980–2016) MA 4 (1997–2025) HI 4 (2000–2006) NC 4 (1999–2006) CO 3 (2005–2026) MI 3 (2020–2026) TN 3 (1999–2024) ND 3 (1982–1987) DE 2 (2014–2018)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check