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 1973–2011 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 |
|---|---|---|
Kurt Strauss v. Douglas Aircraft Co.green2 sentences1996The Strauss court held that “because of the substantial prejudice to Strauss caused by Douglas’ excessive delay in raising the Statute of Limitations defense, the court below abused its discretion in permitting Douglas to amend its answer.” Id. at 1158 . 1986Because the defendant in Roe did not do that, it “waived the statute of limitations by not pleading this defense in its answer.” Id. at 832 ; accord, Basko v. Winthrop Laboratories, Inc., 268 F.Supp. 26, 28-29 (D.Conn.1967) (because the statute of limitations was the obvious defense, “in fairness to all parties [it] should have been explicitly preserved in the answer”); see Strauss v. Douglas Aircraft Co., supra, 404 F.2d at 1156 (when defendant sought leave to amend its answer four years after it was filed, court held that defendant “should have raised the limitations defense in its original | 2 | 3 |
Daniels v. Beeksgreen2 sentences2007Cf. Daniels, supra, 532 A.2d at 128-29 (concluding that the trial court’s refusal to amend the pretrial order was an abuse of discretion because the request for amendment was not filed on the eve of trial, the amendment was justified by the late discovery of evidence, and any surprise or prejudice could have been cured). 2007Cf. Daniels, supra, 532 A.2d at 128-29 (concluding that the trial court’s refusal to amend the pretrial order was an abuse of discretion because the request for amendment was not filed on the eve of trial, the amendment was justified by the late discovery of evidence, and any surprise or prejudice could have been cured). | 1 | 1 |
Atraqchi v. GUMC Unified Billing Servicesgreen1 sentence2005See Atraqchi v. GUMC Unified Billing Servs., 788 A.2d 559, 562 (D.C.2002) (citing Fingerhut v. Children’s Nat’l Med. | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2000Although it appears from the facts before us that ESS’s DCHRA claims may be time-barred, we are cognizant that there has been no fact-finding on the issue of accrual and that the record may be incomplete on this issue. 16 See Davis v. United States, 564 A.2d 31, 40 (D.C.1989) (en banc) (noting “general principle that appellate courts should defer to the trier of fact because, as a functional matter, the trier of fact is better positioned to make such findings”). | 1 | 1 |
Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp.green1 sentence2000Santos, 619 F.2d at 967 ; Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp., 942 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir.1991); Tahoe-Sieira, 992 F.Supp. at 1225 . | 1 | 1 |
Arthur Davis v. Kay Bryan, Raymond Lopes, Aaron Ment, John D. Brennan and George Bronsongreen1 sentence1998See id. at 105 ("If a defendant fails to assert the statute of limitations defense, the district court ordinarily should not raise it sua sponte.") (quoting Davis v. Bryan, 810 F.2d 42, 44 (2d Cir.1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Feldman v. Gogosgreen1 sentence1998See id. at 105 ("If a defendant fails to assert the statute of limitations defense, the district court ordinarily should not raise it sua sponte.") (quoting Davis v. Bryan, 810 F.2d 42, 44 (2d Cir.1987)). | 1 | 1 |
Perry v. Seragreen1 sentence1997Perry v. Sera, 623 A.2d 1210, 1219 (D.C.1993). | 1 | 1 |
Whitener v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritygreen2 sentences1997“If the defense [of the statute of limitations] lurks in the case, vacillation can cause the other party irreparable injury.” Strauss v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 404 F.2d 1152, 1155 (2d Cir.1968); accord, Whitener, supra, 505 A.2d at 460 (quoting Strauss). 1997“If the defense [of the statute of limitations] lurks in the case, vacillation can cause the other party irreparable injury.” Strauss v. Douglas Aircraft Co., 404 F.2d 1152, 1155 (2d Cir.1968); accord, Whitener, supra, 505 A.2d at 460 (quoting Strauss). | 1 | 1 |
Basko v. Winthrop Laboratories, Inc.green1 sentence1986Because the defendant in Roe did not do that, it “waived the statute of limitations by not pleading this defense in its answer.” Id. at 832 ; accord, Basko v. Winthrop Laboratories, Inc., 268 F.Supp. 26, 28-29 (D.Conn.1967) (because the statute of limitations was the obvious defense, “in fairness to all parties [it] should have been explicitly preserved in the answer”); see Strauss v. Douglas Aircraft Co., supra, 404 F.2d at 1156 (when defendant sought leave to amend its answer four years after it was filed, court held that defendant “should have raised the limitations defense in its original | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Oparaugo v. Watts
green
1 sentence2011In sum, “[o]n this record, it is not clear that [the minor QHC] appellants] could present no set of facts that would entitle [them] to relief from the limitations bar.” Oparaugo, 884 A.2d at 75 . | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Tahoe-Sierra Preservation Council, Inc. v. Tahoe Regional Planning Agency
green
1 sentence2000Santos, 619 F.2d at 967 ; Kulzer v. Pittsburgh-Corning Corp., 942 F.2d 122, 125 (2d Cir.1991); Tahoe-Sieira, 992 F.Supp. at 1225 . | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Bradley v. School Bd. of Richmond
green
2 sentences1999Based upon his testimony that he did not learn of the crime victims’ compensation program until after he had been awarded only partial workers’ compensation and “was in hardship,” petitioner argues that he should receive the benefit of the new limitations rule — without regard to why he missed the old deadline — under the doctrine that “a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision.” Bradley v. School Bd. of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711 , 94 S.Ct. 2006 , 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). 1999Based upon his testimony that he did not learn of the crime victims’ compensation program until after he had been awarded only partial workers’ compensation and “was in hardship,” petitioner argues that he should receive the benefit of the new limitations rule — without regard to why he missed the old deadline — under the doctrine that “a court is to apply the law in effect at the time it renders its decision.” Bradley v. School Bd. of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 711 , 94 S.Ct. 2006 , 40 L.Ed.2d 476 (1974). | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Yanci Dupree v. Burtell Jefferson
green
2 sentences1996Dupree v. Jefferson, 215 U.S.App.D.C. at 47-48 , 666 F.2d at 610-11 . 1996Dupree v. Jefferson, 215 U.S.App.D.C. at 47-48 , 666 F.2d at 610-11 . | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Namerdy v. Generalcar
green
1 sentence1992NOTES [1] Appellees are the general landlord, and the tenant of which appellant was a subtenant, both of which have offices in the District of Columbia. [2] The plaintiff in Namerdy was still able to collect on all except the first installment payment under the parties' agreement. 217 A.2d at 113 . [3] The law at the time was apparently in conflict among the federal circuits. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Faith v. Texaco, Inc.
green
1 sentence1986Because the defendant in Roe did not do that, it “waived the statute of limitations by not pleading this defense in its answer.” Id. at 832 ; accord, Basko v. Winthrop Laboratories, Inc., 268 F.Supp. 26, 28-29 (D.Conn.1967) (because the statute of limitations was the obvious defense, “in fairness to all parties [it] should have been explicitly preserved in the answer”); see Strauss v. Douglas Aircraft Co., supra, 404 F.2d at 1156 (when defendant sought leave to amend its answer four years after it was filed, court held that defendant “should have raised the limitations defense in its original | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Roe v. Sears, Roebuck & Co.
green
1 sentence1986Because the defendant in Roe did not do that, it “waived the statute of limitations by not pleading this defense in its answer.” Id. at 832 ; accord, Basko v. Winthrop Laboratories, Inc., 268 F.Supp. 26, 28-29 (D.Conn.1967) (because the statute of limitations was the obvious defense, “in fairness to all parties [it] should have been explicitly preserved in the answer”); see Strauss v. Douglas Aircraft Co., supra, 404 F.2d at 1156 (when defendant sought leave to amend its answer four years after it was filed, court held that defendant “should have raised the limitations defense in its original | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Begnaud v. White
green
1 sentence1973E. g., Begnaud v. White, 170 F.2d 323 (6th Cir. 1948); Delson v. Minogue, 190 F.Supp. 935 (E.D.N.Y.1961). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Delson v. Minogue
green
1 sentence1973E. g., Begnaud v. White, 170 F.2d 323 (6th Cir. 1948); Delson v. Minogue, 190 F.Supp. 935 (E.D.N.Y.1961). | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.