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.
12 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1954–2020 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hancock v. Mutual of Omaha Insurancegreen2 sentences2008Co., 472 A.2d 867, 871 (D.C.1984), a case involving a claim for insurance benefits, this court ruled that a “losing civil litigant who proceeds in forma pauperis has the burden of convincing the trial court that a substantial question exists on appeal in order to get a free transcript.” We made it clear, however, that this standard is not an onerous one. 2008Co., 472 A.2d 867, 871 (D.C.1984), a case involving a claim for insurance benefits, this court ruled that a “losing civil litigant who proceeds in forma pauperis has the burden of convincing the trial court that a substantial question exists on appeal in order to get a free transcript.” We made it clear, however, that this standard is not an onerous one. | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Arthur Hobbsgreen1 sentence2002See, e.g., Rhynes, supra, 218 F.3d at 321 (“exclusion of a defense witness impinges upon the right to present a defense” (internal citation omitted)); id. at 325 (Wilkins, J. concurring) (“the exclusion of a defense witness implicates the defendant’s due process right to present testimony in his own defense”); United States v. Hobbs, 31 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1994) (describing the right to call a defense witness who had violated rule on witnesses as a “constitutionally based right of the defendant to present evidence in his favor”); Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 78 , 436 A.2d 161, 163 (1981) | 1 | 1 |
Commonwealth v. Scottgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Rhynes, supra, 218 F.3d at 321 (“exclusion of a defense witness impinges upon the right to present a defense” (internal citation omitted)); id. at 325 (Wilkins, J. concurring) (“the exclusion of a defense witness implicates the defendant’s due process right to present testimony in his own defense”); United States v. Hobbs, 31 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1994) (describing the right to call a defense witness who had violated rule on witnesses as a “constitutionally based right of the defendant to present evidence in his favor”); Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 78 , 436 A.2d 161, 163 (1981) 2002See, e.g., Rhynes, supra, 218 F.3d at 321 (“exclusion of a defense witness impinges upon the right to present a defense” (internal citation omitted)); id. at 325 (Wilkins, J. concurring) (“the exclusion of a defense witness implicates the defendant’s due process right to present testimony in his own defense”); United States v. Hobbs, 31 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1994) (describing the right to call a defense witness who had violated rule on witnesses as a “constitutionally based right of the defendant to present evidence in his favor”); Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 78 , 436 A.2d 161, 163 (1981) | 1 | 1 |
State v. Leonggreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Rhynes, supra, 218 F.3d at 321 (“exclusion of a defense witness impinges upon the right to present a defense” (internal citation omitted)); id. at 325 (Wilkins, J. concurring) (“the exclusion of a defense witness implicates the defendant’s due process right to present testimony in his own defense”); United States v. Hobbs, 31 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1994) (describing the right to call a defense witness who had violated rule on witnesses as a “constitutionally based right of the defendant to present evidence in his favor”); Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 78 , 436 A.2d 161, 163 (1981) 2002See, e.g., Rhynes, supra, 218 F.3d at 321 (“exclusion of a defense witness impinges upon the right to present a defense” (internal citation omitted)); id. at 325 (Wilkins, J. concurring) (“the exclusion of a defense witness implicates the defendant’s due process right to present testimony in his own defense”); United States v. Hobbs, 31 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1994) (describing the right to call a defense witness who had violated rule on witnesses as a “constitutionally based right of the defendant to present evidence in his favor”); Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 78 , 436 A.2d 161, 163 (1981) | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Michael Sevane Rhynes, United States of America v. Michael Sevane Rhynesgreen2 sentences2002See, e.g., Rhynes, supra, 218 F.3d at 321 (“exclusion of a defense witness impinges upon the right to present a defense” (internal citation omitted)); id. at 325 (Wilkins, J. concurring) (“the exclusion of a defense witness implicates the defendant’s due process right to present testimony in his own defense”); United States v. Hobbs, 31 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1994) (describing the right to call a defense witness who had violated rule on witnesses as a “constitutionally based right of the defendant to present evidence in his favor”); Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 78 , 436 A.2d 161, 163 (1981) 2002See, e.g., Rhynes, supra, 218 F.3d at 321 (“exclusion of a defense witness impinges upon the right to present a defense” (internal citation omitted)); id. at 325 (Wilkins, J. concurring) (“the exclusion of a defense witness implicates the defendant’s due process right to present testimony in his own defense”); United States v. Hobbs, 31 F.3d 918, 921 (9th Cir.1994) (describing the right to call a defense witness who had violated rule on witnesses as a “constitutionally based right of the defendant to present evidence in his favor”); Commonwealth v. Scott, 496 Pa. 78 , 436 A.2d 161, 163 (1981) | 1 | 1 |
Kirschner v. Klavikgreen2 sentences1995Id. (citing Kirschner v. Klavik, 186 A.2d 227, 229 (D.C.1962) (applying Maryland law)). 1995Id. (citing Kirschner v. Klavik, 186 A.2d 227, 229 (D.C.1962) (applying Maryland law)). | 1 | 1 |
Scott v. Throppgreen1 sentence1986This determination is to be made by looking at the “ ‘four corners’ of the will, taken in its entirety, supplemented as necessary by extrinsic facts.” Scott v. Thropp, 385 A.2d 1144, 1146 (D.C.1978); see also In re Estate of Glover, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 463 F.2d 1238 (1972). | 1 | 1 |
In Re Estate of Lois Glover, Deceased. Mary Glover and Alice Glover v. Harry Taylorgreen2 sentences1986This determination is to be made by looking at the “ ‘four corners’ of the will, taken in its entirety, supplemented as necessary by extrinsic facts.” Scott v. Thropp, 385 A.2d 1144, 1146 (D.C.1978); see also In re Estate of Glover, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 463 F.2d 1238 (1972). 1986This determination is to be made by looking at the “ ‘four corners’ of the will, taken in its entirety, supplemented as necessary by extrinsic facts.” Scott v. Thropp, 385 A.2d 1144, 1146 (D.C.1978); see also In re Estate of Glover, 150 U.S.App.D.C. 147 , 463 F.2d 1238 (1972). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Cruz v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
green
1 sentence2020Finally, the evidence supported petitioner’s testimony that she “didn’t quit [CPPH] just not to have a job” — showing, we think, that this is not a case involving a claim that is contrary to the intent of the unemployment insurance statute to withhold payment from “‘the shirker, the slothful or the indolent[.]’” Cruz, 633 A.2d at 69 . | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Jack Ehleiter v. Grapetree Shores, Inc.
green
2 sentences2016The Third Circuit persuasively distinguishes the Eighth Circuit’s opinion by explaining “[to] the extent that Transamerica may be understood as a case involving waiver by prior arbitration conduct, rather than by prior litigation conduct, the case is plainly distinguishable from ours on this basis.” Ehleiter, supra, 482 F.3d at 220 . 2016The Third Circuit persuasively distinguishes the Eighth Circuit’s opinion by explaining “[to] the extent that Transamerica may be understood as a case involving waiver by prior arbitration conduct, rather than by prior litigation conduct, the case is plainly distinguishable from ours on this basis.” Ehleiter, supra, 482 F.3d at 220 . | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc.
green
2 sentences2008In reversing the award of summary judgment, the majority relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), a case involving a claim of age discrimination in employment. 2008In reversing the award of summary judgment, the majority relies heavily on the Supreme Court’s decision in Reeves v. Sanderson Plumbing Products, Inc., 530 U.S. 133 , 120 S.Ct. 2097 , 147 L.Ed.2d 105 (2000), a case involving a claim of age discrimination in employment. | 1 | 2008–2008 |
Roundtree v. United States
green
1 sentence2002The government counters that the witness’ testimony was not disallowed altogether, and that “where, as here, constitutional rights have not been completely foreclosed by erroneous evidentiary rulings, they are .not subject to constitutional error review.” The government has identified no precedent in a “rule, on witnesses” case in which a court has so held; it cites only Roundtree v. United States, 581 A.2d 315 , 329 n. 34 (D.C.1990), a decision which did not involve the rule on witnesses, or the question whether a witness had previously testified or not, but rather dealt with a relevancy ruli | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Meek v. Shepard
green
1 sentence1996Meek, 484 A.2d at 581 & n. 4 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Miller v. Peoples Contractors, Ltd.
green
2 sentences1995Id. (citing Kirschner v. Klavik, 186 A.2d 227, 229 (D.C.1962) (applying Maryland law)). 1995Id. (citing Kirschner v. Klavik, 186 A.2d 227, 229 (D.C.1962) (applying Maryland law)). | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Armco Inc. v. Hardesty
green
2 sentences1994The Court invalidated a West Virginia gross receipts tax which “[o]n its face ... appealed] to” tax a transaction or incident “more heavily when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the state.” 467 U.S. at 642 , 104 S.Ct. at 2622 . 1994The Court invalidated a West Virginia gross receipts tax which “[o]n its face ... appealed] to” tax a transaction or incident “more heavily when it crosses state lines than when it occurs entirely within the state.” 467 U.S. at 642 , 104 S.Ct. at 2622 . | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Buchanan v. Dugan
green
1 sentence1954Buchanan v. Dugan, D.C.Mun.App., 82 A.2d 911 . | 1 | 1954–1954 |
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.