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 1996–2022 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Williamson v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1999See id. at 604 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 (noting that whether statement is against penal interest "can be a fact-intensive inquiry, which would require careful examination of all the circumstances surrounding the criminal activity involved.”) . 1999See id. at 604 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 (noting that whether statement is against penal interest "can be a fact-intensive inquiry, which would require careful examination of all the circumstances surrounding the criminal activity involved.”) . | 1 | 2 |
Benton v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2022Id. 10 “The interest of justice standard calls for a new trial if ‘a fair trial requires that the new witness’ testimony be made available to the jury.” Sellars v. United States, 401 A.2d 974, 979 (D.C. 1979) (quoting Benton, 188 F.2d at 627 (parentheses omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
ABU NASER HOSSAIN v. JMU PROPERTIES, LLCgreen1 sentence2022See Hossain v. JMU Props., LLC, 147 A.3d 816, 822 (D.C. 2016). | 1 | 1 |
Sellars v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2022Id. 10 “The interest of justice standard calls for a new trial if ‘a fair trial requires that the new witness’ testimony be made available to the jury.” Sellars v. United States, 401 A.2d 974, 979 (D.C. 1979) (quoting Benton, 188 F.2d at 627 (parentheses omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Schneckloth v. Bustamontegreen2 sentences2021Whether an individual’s consent is voluntary is a fact-intensive inquiry “to be determined from the totality of all the circumstances.” Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 227 . 2021The test “focus[es] specifically on the consenting person’s characteristics and subjective understanding.” Basnueva, 874 A.2d at 369 ; see also Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 229 (“[A]ccount must be taken of subtly coercive police questions, as well as the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person who consents.”). | 1 | 1 |
Potomac Development Corp. v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence2017Corp. v. District of Columbia, 28 A.3d 531, 544 (D.C. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Burman v. Phoenix Worldwide Industries, Inc.green1 sentence2016Co., 325 F.3d 174, 179 (3d Cir.2003) (quoted in Burman v. Phoenix Worldwide Indus., 384 F.Supp.2d 316, 329 (D.D.C.2005)); see Hercules & Co. v. Shama Rest. | 1 | 1 |
Aes Corp. v. The Dow Chemical Company Dynegy Power Corporation F/k/a Destec Energy Incgreen1 sentence2016Co., 325 F.3d 174, 179 (3d Cir.2003) (quoted in Burman v. Phoenix Worldwide Indus., 384 F.Supp.2d 316, 329 (D.D.C.2005)); see Hercules & Co. v. Shama Rest. | 1 | 1 |
Ashcroft v. Iqbalgreen1 sentence2011See Iqbal, 129 S.Ct. at 1953 (“Our decision in Twombly expounded the pleading standard for ‘all civil actions ... ’ ”). | 1 | 1 |
Hornstein v. Barrygreen1 sentence2011See Hornstein v. Barry, 560 A.2d 530, 537-38 (D.C.1989) (en banc) (noting that a limited record may make it “problematical” to resolve through summary judgment a de facto taking case in which “an ad, hoc case by case inquiry is called for”). | 1 | 1 |
Valley Medical Specialists v. Farbergreen2 sentences2002Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363 , 982 P.2d 1277, 1283 (1999). 2002Specialists v. Farber, 194 Ariz. 363 , 982 P.2d 1277, 1283 (1999). | 1 | 1 |
Gibson v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1999See id. at 604 , 114 S.Ct. 2431 (noting that whether statement is against penal interest "can be a fact-intensive inquiry, which would require careful examination of all the circumstances surrounding the criminal activity involved.") [36] Appellants' specific request is not part of the record. [37] Gibson held that the trial court abused its discretion in part because it did not consider the affidavit of a veteran police officer, which provided compelling information exonerating Gibson, and because there was sufficient information warranting further investigation. 566 A.2d at 479 . | 1 | 1 |
Davis v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996Davis v. United States, 564 A.2d 31, 42 (D.C.1989) (en bane). 1996Davis v. United States, 564 A.2d 31, 42 (D.C. 1989) (en banc). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Ross Green v. United States
green
1 sentence2022Id. 10 “The interest of justice standard calls for a new trial if ‘a fair trial requires that the new witness’ testimony be made available to the jury.” Sellars v. United States, 401 A.2d 974, 979 (D.C. 1979) (quoting Benton, 188 F.2d at 627 (parentheses omitted)). | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Basnueva v. United States
green
1 sentence2021The test “focus[es] specifically on the consenting person’s characteristics and subjective understanding.” Basnueva, 874 A.2d at 369 ; see also Schneckloth, 412 U.S. at 229 (“[A]ccount must be taken of subtly coercive police questions, as well as the possibly vulnerable subjective state of the person who consents.”). | 1 | 2021–2021 |
Portuguese American Leadership Council of the United States, Inc. v. Investors' Alert, Inc.
green
1 sentence2020Id. 680-82 & n.11 (quoting 47 C.F.R.§ 64.1200(a)(3)(vii) (now codified at (a)(4)(vi)) and discussing the FCC’s 2006 Order). | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Kolstad v. American Dental Assn.
green
2 sentences2015Dental Assn, 527 U.S. 526, 543 , 119 S.Ct. 2118 , 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999) (internal quotation mark omitted). 2015Dental Assn, 527 U.S. 526, 543 , 119 S.Ct. 2118 , 144 L.Ed.2d 494 (1999) (internal quotation mark omitted). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
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.