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.
13 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Andrew Tsanasgreen2 sentences1996Although recognizing that neither the "reasonable efforts" approach nor the "acquittal first" instruction is wrong as a matter of law, we concluded that the trial court should use the form of the instruction selected timely by the defendant "because the defendant's liberty is at stake." Wright, 588 A.2d at 262 (citing United States v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340, 346 (2d. 1996Although recognizing that neither the “reasonable efforts” approach nor the “acquittal first” instruction is wrong as a matter of law, we concluded that the trial court should use the form of the instruction selected timely by the defendant “because the defendant’s liberty is at stake.” Wright, 588 A.2d at 262 (citing United States v. Tsanas, 572 F.2d 340, 346 (2d. | 1 | 2 |
Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence2020By contrast, claimants seeking PPD schedule awards rely on a more limited range of evidence and, most importantly, on written medical reports and disability ratings by doctors, and the decision-makers recognize a “conclusively presumed” “effect on earning capacity.” WMATA v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 965 A.2d 1, 3 (D.C. 2009) (quoting 2 A. Larson, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION LAW, § 58.11, at 10-323 to 10-324 (1987)); cf. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344, 345 (1976) (“The potential value of an evidentiary hearing” is less where the decision will turn on “routine, standard, an | 1 | 1 |
Mathews v. Eldridgegreen1 sentence2020By contrast, claimants seeking PPD schedule awards rely on a more limited range of evidence and, most importantly, on written medical reports and disability ratings by doctors, and the decision-makers recognize a “conclusively presumed” “effect on earning capacity.” WMATA v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., 965 A.2d 1, 3 (D.C. 2009) (quoting 2 A. Larson, WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION LAW, § 58.11, at 10-323 to 10-324 (1987)); cf. Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 344, 345 (1976) (“The potential value of an evidentiary hearing” is less where the decision will turn on “routine, standard, an | 1 | 1 |
Chambers-Castanes v. King Countygreen2 sentences2014Muthukumarana v. Montgomery Cnty., 370 Md. 447 , 805 A.2d 372, 401 (2002); see Chambers-Castanes v. King Cnty., 100 Wash.2d 275 , 669 P.2d 451, 458 (1983) (en banc) (acknowledging this court’s decision in Warren and opining that a special duty should have been recognized in that case). . 2014Muthukumarana v. Montgomery Cnty., 370 Md. 447 , 805 A.2d 372, 401 (2002); see Chambers-Castanes v. King Cnty., 100 Wash.2d 275 , 669 P.2d 451, 458 (1983) (en banc) (acknowledging this court’s decision in Warren and opining that a special duty should have been recognized in that case). . | 1 | 1 |
Muthukumarana v. Montgomery Countygreen2 sentences2014Muthukumarana v. Montgomery Cnty., 370 Md. 447 , 805 A.2d 372, 401 (2002); see Chambers-Castanes v. King Cnty., 100 Wash.2d 275 , 669 P.2d 451, 458 (1983) (en banc) (acknowledging this court’s decision in Warren and opining that a special duty should have been recognized in that case). . 2014Muthukumarana v. Montgomery Cnty., 370 Md. 447 , 805 A.2d 372, 401 (2002); see Chambers-Castanes v. King Cnty., 100 Wash.2d 275 , 669 P.2d 451, 458 (1983) (en banc) (acknowledging this court’s decision in Warren and opining that a special duty should have been recognized in that case). . | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. Statered1 sentence2014Some that formerly employed the doctrine have abandoned it.33 Others have considered, but declined to adopt, ―the confusing and inconsistent public duty doctrine.‖34 These states‘ reasons for rejecting the public duty doctrine are varied but include: a concern that it conflicts with waivers of sovereign (…continued) police protection‖); Commonwealth v. Burns, 639 S.E.2d 276, 278 (Va. 2007) (―This Court has only applied the public duty doctrine in cases when a public official owed a duty to control the behavior of a third party, and the third party committed acts of assaultive criminal behavior | 1 | 1 |
Beaudrie v. Hendersongreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 315 Ga.App. 233 , 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2012) ("The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind.1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves government actors of the obligation to "prevent crime”); Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124 , 631 N.W.2d 308, 313 (2001) (declining to expand the public duty doctrine beyond those cases "alleging a failure t 2014See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 315 Ga.App. 233 , 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2012) ("The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind.1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves government actors of the obligation to "prevent crime”); Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124 , 631 N.W.2d 308, 313 (2001) (declining to expand the public duty doctrine beyond those cases "alleging a failure t | 1 | 1 |
Benton v. City of Oakland Citygreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 315 Ga.App. 233 , 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2012) ("The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind.1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves government actors of the obligation to "prevent crime”); Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124 , 631 N.W.2d 308, 313 (2001) (declining to expand the public duty doctrine beyond those cases "alleging a failure t 2014In a number of states, the ―public duty doctrine‖ only precludes claims that the police failed to protect a citizen from harm caused by a third party.31 Even the states that have a broader conception of the public duty 31 See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (Ga. 2012) (―The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.‖ (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind. 1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves | 1 | 1 |
Wood v. Guilford Countygreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 315 Ga.App. 233 , 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2012) ("The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind.1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves government actors of the obligation to "prevent crime”); Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124 , 631 N.W.2d 308, 313 (2001) (declining to expand the public duty doctrine beyond those cases "alleging a failure t 2014See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 315 Ga.App. 233 , 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2012) ("The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind.1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves government actors of the obligation to "prevent crime”); Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124 , 631 N.W.2d 308, 313 (2001) (declining to expand the public duty doctrine beyond those cases "alleging a failure t | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Burnsgreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 315 Ga.App. 233 , 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2012) ("The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind.1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves government actors of the obligation to "prevent crime”); Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124 , 631 N.W.2d 308, 313 (2001) (declining to expand the public duty doctrine beyond those cases "alleging a failure t 2014See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 315 Ga.App. 233 , 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2012) ("The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind.1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves government actors of the obligation to "prevent crime”); Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124 , 631 N.W.2d 308, 313 (2001) (declining to expand the public duty doctrine beyond those cases "alleging a failure t | 1 | 1 |
Stevenson v. City of Doravillegreen2 sentences2014See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 315 Ga.App. 233 , 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2012) ("The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind.1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves government actors of the obligation to "prevent crime”); Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124 , 631 N.W.2d 308, 313 (2001) (declining to expand the public duty doctrine beyond those cases "alleging a failure t 2014See, e.g., Stevenson v. City of Doraville, 315 Ga.App. 233 , 726 S.E.2d 726, 728 (2012) ("The public duty doctrine applies only to the provision of police protection services, such as requests for emergency help.” (internal quotation marks omitted)); Benton v. City of Oakland City, 721 N.E.2d 224, 230 (Ind.1999) (considering the public duty doctrine to be a form of immunity that relieves government actors of the obligation to "prevent crime”); Beaudrie v. Henderson, 465 Mich. 124 , 631 N.W.2d 308, 313 (2001) (declining to expand the public duty doctrine beyond those cases "alleging a failure t | 1 | 1 |
In Re Daygreen2 sentences2001Because a resignation in the face of pending charges of misconduct is a form of bar discipline, see In re Day, 717 A.2d 883, 888 (D.C. 1998), the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that Schoeneman be suspended from the District of Columbia Bar as a reciprocal matter, with leave to apply for reinstatement if granted in Virginia, or after five years, whichever occurs first. 2001Because a resignation in the face of pending charges of misconduct is a form of bar discipline, see In re Day, 717 A.2d 883, 888 (D.C. 1998), the Board on Professional Responsibility recommends that Schoeneman be suspended from the District of Columbia Bar as a reciprocal matter, with leave to apply for reinstatement if granted in Virginia, or after five years, whichever occurs first. | 1 | 1 |
Boyer v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 325 , 239 F.2d 945, 946 (1956); Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347 , 226 F.2d 251, 253 (1955); Boyer v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 397-98 , 132 F.2d 12, 12-13 (1942); Martin v. United States, 75 U.S.Ap.D.C. 399, 399-400, 127 F.2d 865, 865-66 (1942); Copeland v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 106, 108 , 2 F.2d 637, 639 (1924); McHenry v. United States, 51 App.D.C. 119, 123-24 , 276 F. 761, 765-66 (1921); Burge v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 524, 534-35 (1906); Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83 (1905); Funk v. 1997See, e.g., Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 325 , 239 F.2d 945, 946 (1956); Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347 , 226 F.2d 251, 253 (1955); Boyer v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 397-98 , 132 F.2d 12, 12-13 (1942); Martin v. United States, 75 U.S.Ap.D.C. 399, 399-400, 127 F.2d 865, 865-66 (1942); Copeland v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 106, 108 , 2 F.2d 637, 639 (1924); McHenry v. United States, 51 App.D.C. 119, 123-24 , 276 F. 761, 765-66 (1921); Burge v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 524, 534-35 (1906); Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83 (1905); Funk v. | 1 | 1 |
Martin v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1997See, e.g., Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 325 , 239 F.2d 945, 946 (1956); Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347 , 226 F.2d 251, 253 (1955); Boyer v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 397-98 , 132 F.2d 12, 12-13 (1942); Martin v. United States, 75 U.S.Ap.D.C. 399, 399-400, 127 F.2d 865, 865-66 (1942); Copeland v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 106, 108 , 2 F.2d 637, 639 (1924); McHenry v. United States, 51 App.D.C. 119, 123-24 , 276 F. 761, 765-66 (1921); Burge v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 524, 534-35 (1906); Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83 (1905); Funk v. | 1 | 1 |
John S. Fairbanks v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 325 , 239 F.2d 945, 946 (1956); Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347 , 226 F.2d 251, 253 (1955); Boyer v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 397-98 , 132 F.2d 12, 12-13 (1942); Martin v. United States, 75 U.S.Ap.D.C. 399, 399-400, 127 F.2d 865, 865-66 (1942); Copeland v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 106, 108 , 2 F.2d 637, 639 (1924); McHenry v. United States, 51 App.D.C. 119, 123-24 , 276 F. 761, 765-66 (1921); Burge v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 524, 534-35 (1906); Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83 (1905); Funk v. 1997See, e.g., Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 325 , 239 F.2d 945, 946 (1956); Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347 , 226 F.2d 251, 253 (1955); Boyer v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 397-98 , 132 F.2d 12, 12-13 (1942); Martin v. United States, 75 U.S.Ap.D.C. 399, 399-400, 127 F.2d 865, 865-66 (1942); Copeland v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 106, 108 , 2 F.2d 637, 639 (1924); McHenry v. United States, 51 App.D.C. 119, 123-24 , 276 F. 761, 765-66 (1921); Burge v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 524, 534-35 (1906); Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83 (1905); Funk v. | 1 | 1 |
Alva B. Harper v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1997See, e.g., Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 325 , 239 F.2d 945, 946 (1956); Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347 , 226 F.2d 251, 253 (1955); Boyer v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 397-98 , 132 F.2d 12, 12-13 (1942); Martin v. United States, 75 U.S.Ap.D.C. 399, 399-400, 127 F.2d 865, 865-66 (1942); Copeland v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 106, 108 , 2 F.2d 637, 639 (1924); McHenry v. United States, 51 App.D.C. 119, 123-24 , 276 F. 761, 765-66 (1921); Burge v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 524, 534-35 (1906); Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83 (1905); Funk v. 1997See, e.g., Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 325 , 239 F.2d 945, 946 (1956); Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347 , 226 F.2d 251, 253 (1955); Boyer v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 397-98 , 132 F.2d 12, 12-13 (1942); Martin v. United States, 75 U.S.Ap.D.C. 399, 399-400, 127 F.2d 865, 865-66 (1942); Copeland v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 106, 108 , 2 F.2d 637, 639 (1924); McHenry v. United States, 51 App.D.C. 119, 123-24 , 276 F. 761, 765-66 (1921); Burge v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 524, 534-35 (1906); Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83 (1905); Funk v. | 1 | 1 |
| McHenry v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Copeland v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fearson v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Funk v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
Ryan v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1997See, e.g., Harper v. United States, 99 U.S.App.D.C. 324, 325 , 239 F.2d 945, 946 (1956); Fairbanks v. United States, 96 U.S.App.D.C. 345, 347 , 226 F.2d 251, 253 (1955); Boyer v. United States, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 397, 397-98 , 132 F.2d 12, 12-13 (1942); Martin v. United States, 75 U.S.Ap.D.C. 399, 399-400, 127 F.2d 865, 865-66 (1942); Copeland v. United States, 55 App.D.C. 106, 108 , 2 F.2d 637, 639 (1924); McHenry v. United States, 51 App.D.C. 119, 123-24 , 276 F. 761, 765-66 (1921); Burge v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 524, 534-35 (1906); Ryan v. United States, 26 App.D.C. 74, 83 (1905); Funk v. | 1 | 1 |
| Burge v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Kidwell v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Atkinsongreen | 1 | 1 |
| United States v. Benjamin Indivigliogreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fredrick v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Paul A. Gorin v. United States of America, Henry Grillo v. United States of America, Saul Glassman v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Platt v. Minnesota Mining & Manufacturing Co.green | 1 | 1 |
| Wapnick v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Seafarers International Union v. Castrogreen | 1 | 1 |
| South Texas Commercial National Bank v. Commissionergreen | 1 | 1 |
| Winston v. Illinoisgreen | 1 | 1 |
| Fredrick v. United Statesgreen | 1 | 1 |
| William T. Fulwood v. United Statesgreen | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Doucette v. Town of Bristol & a.
green
1 sentence2014Some that formerly employed the doctrine have abandoned it.33 Others have considered, but declined to adopt, ―the confusing and inconsistent public duty doctrine.‖34 These states‘ reasons for rejecting the public duty doctrine are varied but include: a concern that it conflicts with waivers of sovereign (…continued) police protection‖); Commonwealth v. Burns, 639 S.E.2d 276, 278 (Va. 2007) (―This Court has only applied the public duty doctrine in cases when a public official owed a duty to control the behavior of a third party, and the third party committed acts of assaultive criminal behavior | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Jean W. v. Commonwealth
green
1 sentence2014Some that formerly employed the doctrine have abandoned it.33 Others have considered, but declined to adopt, ―the confusing and inconsistent public duty doctrine.‖34 These states‘ reasons for rejecting the public duty doctrine are varied but include: a concern that it conflicts with waivers of sovereign (…continued) police protection‖); Commonwealth v. Burns, 639 S.E.2d 276, 278 (Va. 2007) (―This Court has only applied the public duty doctrine in cases when a public official owed a duty to control the behavior of a third party, and the third party committed acts of assaultive criminal behavior | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Schear v. Board of County Commissioners
green
1 sentence2014Some that formerly employed the doctrine have abandoned it.33 Others have considered, but declined to adopt, ―the confusing and inconsistent public duty doctrine.‖34 These states‘ reasons for rejecting the public duty doctrine are varied but include: a concern that it conflicts with waivers of sovereign (…continued) police protection‖); Commonwealth v. Burns, 639 S.E.2d 276, 278 (Va. 2007) (―This Court has only applied the public duty doctrine in cases when a public official owed a duty to control the behavior of a third party, and the third party committed acts of assaultive criminal behavior | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Leake v. Cain
green
1 sentence2014Some that formerly employed the doctrine have abandoned it.33 Others have considered, but declined to adopt, ―the confusing and inconsistent public duty doctrine.‖34 These states‘ reasons for rejecting the public duty doctrine are varied but include: a concern that it conflicts with waivers of sovereign (…continued) police protection‖); Commonwealth v. Burns, 639 S.E.2d 276, 278 (Va. 2007) (―This Court has only applied the public duty doctrine in cases when a public official owed a duty to control the behavior of a third party, and the third party committed acts of assaultive criminal behavior | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Brennen v. City of Eugene
green
1 sentence2014Some that formerly employed the doctrine have abandoned it.33 Others have considered, but declined to adopt, ―the confusing and inconsistent public duty doctrine.‖34 These states‘ reasons for rejecting the public duty doctrine are varied but include: a concern that it conflicts with waivers of sovereign (…continued) police protection‖); Commonwealth v. Burns, 639 S.E.2d 276, 278 (Va. 2007) (―This Court has only applied the public duty doctrine in cases when a public official owed a duty to control the behavior of a third party, and the third party committed acts of assaultive criminal behavior | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Natrona County v. Blake
green
1 sentence2014Some that formerly employed the doctrine have abandoned it.33 Others have considered, but declined to adopt, ―the confusing and inconsistent public duty doctrine.‖34 These states‘ reasons for rejecting the public duty doctrine are varied but include: a concern that it conflicts with waivers of sovereign (…continued) police protection‖); Commonwealth v. Burns, 639 S.E.2d 276, 278 (Va. 2007) (―This Court has only applied the public duty doctrine in cases when a public official owed a duty to control the behavior of a third party, and the third party committed acts of assaultive criminal behavior | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Commercial Carrier Corp. v. Indian River Cty.
green
1 sentence2014Some that formerly employed the doctrine have abandoned it.33 Others have considered, but declined to adopt, ―the confusing and inconsistent public duty doctrine.‖34 These states‘ reasons for rejecting the public duty doctrine are varied but include: a concern that it conflicts with waivers of sovereign (…continued) police protection‖); Commonwealth v. Burns, 639 S.E.2d 276, 278 (Va. 2007) (―This Court has only applied the public duty doctrine in cases when a public official owed a duty to control the behavior of a third party, and the third party committed acts of assaultive criminal behavior | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Sandstrom v. Montana
green
2 sentences2011Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); Green v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 98 , 405 F.2d 1368 (1968). 2011Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); Green v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 98 , 405 F.2d 1368 (1968). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Kenneth Green v. United States
green
2 sentences2011Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); Green v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 98 , 405 F.2d 1368 (1968). 2011Sandstrom v. Montana, 442 U.S. 510 , 99 S.Ct. 2450 , 61 L.Ed.2d 39 (1979); Green v. United States, 132 U.S.App.D.C. 98 , 405 F.2d 1368 (1968). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Hansford P. Miller v. Jackson Avirom
green
1 sentence2003D.C. at 370, 384 F.2d at 322 , to say that Daka clearly voiced a request for incorporation when it objected. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Proctor v. United States
green
1 sentence2001Our latest ruling to this effect is Proctor v. United States, 728 A.2d 1246 , amended by 747 A.2d 134 (D.C.1999). 9 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Proctor v. United States
green
1 sentence2001Our latest ruling to this effect is Proctor v. United States, 728 A.2d 1246 , amended by 747 A.2d 134 (D.C.1999). 9 . | 1 | 2001–2001 |
Nathan L. Drew v. United States
green
2 sentences1997But appellant made no such request here, and it is difficult to imagine the form such an instruction might have taken: the evidence was admissible precisely as proof that because Wilson threatened to kill Powell, he did so in fact — or at least that, having threatened the murder, it was more probable that he did the slaying than if he had made no such threat. [1] Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11 , 331 F.2d 85 (1964), is the case most often cited as epitomizing the rule; indeed, the name of the appellant in that case has become synonymous with the rule. [2] Even long before Drew , cou 1997But appellant made no such request here, and it is difficult to imagine the form such an instruction might have taken: the evidence was admissible precisely as proof that because Wilson threatened to kill Powell, he did so in fact — or at least that, having threatened the murder, it was more probable that he did the slaying than if he had made no such threat. [1] Drew v. United States, 118 U.S.App.D.C. 11 , 331 F.2d 85 (1964), is the case most often cited as epitomizing the rule; indeed, the name of the appellant in that case has become synonymous with the rule. [2] Even long before Drew , cou | 1 | 1997–1997 |
| Wright v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Knehans v. Alexander green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Tsanas v. United States green | 1 | 1996–1996 |
| Thompson v. Pike green | 1 | 1995–1995 |
| Bunter v. United States green | 1 | 1974–1974 |
| Aldridge v. United States green | 1 | 1972–1972 |
| Perth Amboy Dry Dock Co. v. Hansen green | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.