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.
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.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Cohen v. Rental Housing Commissiongreen2 sentences2006Furthermore, 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). | 8 | 10 |
Cobb v. Standard Drug Co., Inc.green2 sentences1992If 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. | 3 | 3 |
Union Market Neighbors v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission and Foulger-Pratt Development, LLCgreen2 sentences2019Neighbors 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). | 2 | 3 |
Robinson v. Smithgreen2 sentences1997“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)). | 2 | 2 |
Hoage v. Board of Trustees of Univ. of DCgreen2 sentences2018Appeals , 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)). | 1 | 2 |
Cooper v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen2 sentences1997Cooper 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). | 1 | 1 |
Grayson v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence1997“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). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. District of Columbia Office of Employee Appeals
green
2 sentences2019Appeals , 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) ). | 2 | 2018–2019 |
Sinobia Newell-Brinkley v. Diana Haines Walton
green
1 sentence2019Although 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. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Durant v. District of Columbia Zoning Commission
green
1 sentence2019An 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. | 1 | 2019–2019 |
Hsue Tung v. W.T. Cabe & Co.
green
2 sentences1992Cabe & 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). | 1 | 1992–1992 |
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.