14 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2016 0 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jones v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011The instruction omitted certain other "objectionable language found in the Jones instruction," see Lampkins v. United States, 973 A.2d 171, 173 (D.C. 2009), and it included additional "language balanced against the desirability of agreement that reminded the jurors not to surrender their honestly held convictions, even if that prevented agreement." Jones, 946 A.2d at 974 ; see also McClary v. United States, 3 A.3d 346, 354-55 (D.C.2010). 2011The instruction omitted certain other "objectionable language found in the Jones instruction," see Lampkins v. United States, 973 A.2d 171, 173 (D.C. 2009), and it included additional "language balanced against the desirability of agreement that reminded the jurors not to surrender their honestly held convictions, even if that prevented agreement." Jones, 946 A.2d at 974 ; see also McClary v. United States, 3 A.3d 346, 354-55 (D.C.2010). | 2 | 3 |
McClary v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011The instruction omitted certain other "objectionable language found in the Jones instruction," see Lampkins v. United States, 973 A.2d 171, 173 (D.C. 2009), and it included additional "language balanced against the desirability of agreement that reminded the jurors not to surrender their honestly held convictions, even if that prevented agreement." Jones, 946 A.2d at 974 ; see also McClary v. United States, 3 A.3d 346, 354-55 (D.C.2010). 2011The instruction omitted certain other "objectionable language found in the Jones instruction," see Lampkins v. United States, 973 A.2d 171, 173 (D.C. 2009), and it included additional "language balanced against the desirability of agreement that reminded the jurors not to surrender their honestly held convictions, even if that prevented agreement." Jones, 946 A.2d at 974 ; see also McClary v. United States, 3 A.3d 346, 354-55 (D.C.2010). | 2 | 2 |
Lampkins v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2011In Lampkins v. United States, 973 A.2d 171 (D.C.2009), we found “no error, much less plain error,” because the instruction at issue "did not include the objectionable language found in the [(Marcus)] Jones instruction....” Id. at 173 . 2011In Lampkins v. United States, 973 A.2d 171 (D.C.2009), we found “no error, much less plain error,” because the instruction at issue "did not include the objectionable language found in the [(Marcus)] Jones instruction....” Id. at 173 . | 1 | 2 |
United States v. Olanogreen2 sentences2010See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). 2010See United States v. Olano, 507 U.S. 725, 731-32 , 113 S.Ct. 1770 , 123 L.Ed.2d 508 (1993). | 1 | 1 |
Coleman v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1995See Coleman v. United States, 414 A.2d 528, 530 (dismissing “as frivolous” an interlocutory appeal based on the Double Jeopardy Clause where no prior jeopardy had ever attached). | 1 | 1 |
Clifton Rhone v. United States of America, John S. Wilson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1992C.Irreconcilable defenses Prejudice can arise when two defendants “present conflicting and irreconcilable defenses and there is a danger that the jury will unjustifiably infer that this conflict alone demonstrates that both are guilty....” Rhone v. United States, 125 U.S.App.D.C. 47 , 48, 365 F.2d 980, 981 (1966). | 1 | 1 |
Waldon v. Covingtongreen1 sentence1991As for Mrs. Jones's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, we do not agree that, on this record, appellees’ failure to diagnose Mrs. Jones’s pregnancy before subjecting her to x-rays could be found to constitute " ‘extreme and outrageous conduct' ” that goes " beyond all possible bounds of decency and [is] regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” See Waldon v. Covington, 415 A.2d 1070, 1076 (D.C.1980) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, comment d (1965)); cf. Downer, supra note 5 , 322 A.2d at 90 (physician's failure to inform usually | 1 | 1 |
Downer v. Veilleuxgreen2 sentences1991As for Mrs. Jones's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, we do not agree that, on this record, appellees’ failure to diagnose Mrs. Jones’s pregnancy before subjecting her to x-rays could be found to constitute " ‘extreme and outrageous conduct' ” that goes " beyond all possible bounds of decency and [is] regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” See Waldon v. Covington, 415 A.2d 1070, 1076 (D.C.1980) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, comment d (1965)); cf. Downer, supra note 5 , 322 A.2d at 90 (physician's failure to inform usually 1991As for Mrs. Jones's claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress, we do not agree that, on this record, appellees’ failure to diagnose Mrs. Jones’s pregnancy before subjecting her to x-rays could be found to constitute " ‘extreme and outrageous conduct' ” that goes " beyond all possible bounds of decency and [is] regarded as atrocious and utterly intolerable in a civilized community.’ ” See Waldon v. Covington, 415 A.2d 1070, 1076 (D.C.1980) (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 46, comment d (1965)); cf. Downer, supra note 5 , 322 A.2d at 90 (physician's failure to inform usually | 1 | 1 |
Winters v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1988See Ford v. United States, 396 A.2d 191, 194-195 (D.C.1978); United States v. Lane, 192 U.S.App.D.C. 352 , 591 F.2d 961 (1979); Gass v. United States, 135 U.S. App.D.C. 11, 13-14, 416 F.2d 767, 769-770 (1969). 6 .Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 2.91(B) (3d ed. 1978); see Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530 (D.C.1974) (en banc). 7 . | 1 | 1 |
Ford v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1988See Ford v. United States, 396 A.2d 191, 194-195 (D.C.1978); United States v. Lane, 192 U.S.App.D.C. 352 , 591 F.2d 961 (1979); Gass v. United States, 135 U.S. App.D.C. 11, 13-14, 416 F.2d 767, 769-770 (1969). 6 .Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 2.91(B) (3d ed. 1978); see Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530 (D.C.1974) (en banc). 7 . | 1 | 1 |
William J. Gass v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1988See Ford v. United States, 396 A.2d 191, 194-195 (D.C.1978); United States v. Lane, 192 U.S.App.D.C. 352 , 591 F.2d 961 (1979); Gass v. United States, 135 U.S. App.D.C. 11, 13-14, 416 F.2d 767, 769-770 (1969). 6 .Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 2.91(B) (3d ed. 1978); see Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530 (D.C.1974) (en banc). 7 . | 1 | 1 |
Atkinson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1978See Atkinson v. United States, D.C.App., 366 A.2d 450, 453 (1976). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Belton v. United States
green
1 sentence2016We elect to consider Jones's claim under "the standard of review available to any criminal defendant who has made a timely request for relief.” Id. at 1212-13 . 23 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Strickland v. Washington
green
2 sentences2015Having raised these claims in a motion under Rule 33 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Jones argued — and the trial court agreed — that he need not demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to be awarded a new trial, but needed only to show that a new trial was necessary in “the interests of justice.” Super. 2015Having raised these claims in a motion under Rule 33 of the Superior Court Rules of Criminal Procedure, Mr. Jones argued — and the trial court agreed — that he need not demonstrate a violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel pursuant to Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 , 104 S.Ct. 2052 , 80 L.Ed.2d 674 (1984), to be awarded a new trial, but needed only to show that a new trial was necessary in “the interests of justice.” Super. | 1 | 2015–2015 |
United States v. Russell
green
2 sentences2010Russell, 255 U.S. at 143 , 41 S.Ct. 260 . 2010Russell, 255 U.S. at 143 , 41 S.Ct. 260 . | 1 | 2010–2010 |
People v. Wiedman
green
2 sentences2004Jones, 669 A.2d at 730 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). *212 Appellant argues in his reply brief that "[t]here is no merit to the contention that the Collateral Estoppel form of Double Jeopardy may be invoked ... only where jeopardy earlier attached to the defendant in the first prosecution.” For this proposition he cites United States v. Byars, 762 F.Supp. 1235 (E.D.Va.1991), and People v. Wiedman, 168 Ill.App.3d 199 , 118 Ill.Dec. 776 , 522 N.E.2d 231 (1988). 2004Jones, 669 A.2d at 730 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). *212 Appellant argues in his reply brief that "[t]here is no merit to the contention that the Collateral Estoppel form of Double Jeopardy may be invoked ... only where jeopardy earlier attached to the defendant in the first prosecution.” For this proposition he cites United States v. Byars, 762 F.Supp. 1235 (E.D.Va.1991), and People v. Wiedman, 168 Ill.App.3d 199 , 118 Ill.Dec. 776 , 522 N.E.2d 231 (1988). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
United States v. Byars
green
1 sentence2004Jones, 669 A.2d at 730 (emphasis in original; footnote omitted). *212 Appellant argues in his reply brief that "[t]here is no merit to the contention that the Collateral Estoppel form of Double Jeopardy may be invoked ... only where jeopardy earlier attached to the defendant in the first prosecution.” For this proposition he cites United States v. Byars, 762 F.Supp. 1235 (E.D.Va.1991), and People v. Wiedman, 168 Ill.App.3d 199 , 118 Ill.Dec. 776 , 522 N.E.2d 231 (1988). | 1 | 2004–2004 |
Kelton v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1992In granting Dr. Jones’ motion for summary judgment (Order of August 29, 1989), the court considered “[Dr. Jones’] Statement of Material Facts Not in Dispute, 4 and the Memorandum of Points and Authorities, a review of the pertinent pleadings, discovery materials and transcripts of the hearing [March 21, 1988] ... and any opposition filed thereto by [Anderson] 5 ” (footnotes added), and decided that Kelton v. District of Columbia, 413 A.2d 919 (D.C.1980), controlled. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
United States v. Henry T. Lane, A/K/A Dutch, A/K/A Henry T, (Two Cases)
green
2 sentences1988See Ford v. United States, 396 A.2d 191, 194-195 (D.C.1978); United States v. Lane, 192 U.S.App.D.C. 352 , 591 F.2d 961 (1979); Gass v. United States, 135 U.S. App.D.C. 11, 13-14, 416 F.2d 767, 769-770 (1969). 6 .Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 2.91(B) (3d ed. 1978); see Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530 (D.C.1974) (en banc). 7 . 1988See Ford v. United States, 396 A.2d 191, 194-195 (D.C.1978); United States v. Lane, 192 U.S.App.D.C. 352 , 591 F.2d 961 (1979); Gass v. United States, 135 U.S. App.D.C. 11, 13-14, 416 F.2d 767, 769-770 (1969). 6 .Criminal Jury Instructions for the District of Columbia, No. 2.91(B) (3d ed. 1978); see Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530 (D.C.1974) (en banc). 7 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.