11 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2025 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Daley v. Alpha Kappa Alpha Sorority, Inc.green1 sentence2016See Daley, 26 A.3d at 729 (holding that the claims brought by plaintiff suspended sorority members, for “relief from improper discipline” by the non-profit sorority, was a direct rather than derivative claim; reasoning that “the individual rights of the plaintiffs were affected by the alleged failure to follow the dictates of the constitution and by-laws and they thus had a direct, personal interest in the cause of action, even if the corporation’s rights are also implicated” (internal quotation marks omitted)). | 1 | 1 |
Moss v. Stockardgreen1 sentence2007See Moss v. Stockard, 580 A.2d 1011 (D.C.1990). 6 . | 1 | 1 |
Rong Yao Zhou v. Jennifer Mall Restaurant, Inc.green2 sentences2000See Rong Yao Zhou, 534 A.2d at 1273 . 2000See Rong Yao Zhou, 534 A.2d at 1273 . | 1 | 1 |
J. P. Foley & Co. v. Vanderbiltgreen2 sentences1995Foley & Co. v. Vanderbilt, 65 F.R.D. 523, 526 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (privilege “does not cover attorney’s communications— whether in the form of information or advice — ” which are not based upon confidential communications of the client) (citations omitted). 11 From this record, we are persuaded that Children’s satisfied the Sealed Case exception by demonstrating that the lawyers’ communication was inextricably intertwined with the Children’s confidential disclosure. 1995Foley & Co. v. Vanderbilt, 65 F.R.D. 523, 526 (S.D.N.Y.1974) (privilege "does not cover attorney's communications whether in the form of information or advice" which are not based upon confidential communications of the client) (citations omitted). [11] From this record, we are persuaded that Children's satisfied the Sealed Case exception by demonstrating that the lawyers' communication was inextricably intertwined with the Children's confidential disclosure. | 1 | 1 |
In re Arthur Treacher's Franchisee Litigationgreen2 sentences1995See also Arthur Treacher’s, supra, 92 F.R.D. at 435 (declining to follow the view that the privilege would never operate to preclude inquiry into the subject matter of privileged communication); but see J.P. 1995See also Arthur Treacher's, supra, 92 F.R.D. at 435 (declining to follow the view that the privilege would never operate to preclude inquiry into the subject matter of privileged communication); but see J.P. | 1 | 1 |
Matter of Addamsgreen2 sentences1995Nonetheless, he would find the situation here to present those "extraordinary circumstances” which Addams, supra, 579 A.2d at 191, envisioned as justifying a sanction less than disbarment. 5 . 1995Nonetheless, he would find the situation here to present those "extraordinary circumstances” which Addams, supra, 579 A.2d at 191, envisioned as justifying a sanction less than disbarment. 5 . | 1 | 1 |
Watts v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1991See Clark v. United States, 412 A.2d 21, 30 (D.C.1980). [2] As we have said in another context: The government contends that we must review Wilkins' claim of error under the plain error standard set forth in Watts v. United States, 362 A.2d 706, 709 (D.C.1976) (en banc), because defense counsel failed to object when the prosecutor actually read Pipkin's grand jury testimony aloud in front of the jury. | 1 | 1 |
Clark v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1991See Clark v. United States, 412 A.2d 21, 30 (D.C.1980). . 1991See Clark v. United States, 412 A.2d 21, 30 (D.C.1980). [2] As we have said in another context: The government contends that we must review Wilkins' claim of error under the plain error standard set forth in Watts v. United States, 362 A.2d 706, 709 (D.C.1976) (en banc), because defense counsel failed to object when the prosecutor actually read Pipkin's grand jury testimony aloud in front of the jury. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Johnson v. United States
green
2 sentences2005Thus, the trial court’s action in responding to the jury request comports with our mandate in Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354 (D.C.1979). 1998In sum, since the trial court took too limited a view of the factors relevant to the exercise of its discretion, see Johnson v. United States, 398 A.2d 354 (D.C.1979), we reverse with instructions to determine whether Debose is entitled to Rule 60(b) relief under the Starling/Ripalda and Cameron/Bulin factors. | 2 | 1998–2005 |
In Re Public Defender Service
green
1 sentence2025(But under the concurrence’s conception of the crime-fraud exception, opposing counsel could compel disclosure of a client’s statements even when counsel was of the view that hearing the client out had given counsel the opportunity to build trust and redirect the client to conform his behavior with the law.) “To withhold the privilege from such communications would be a mistake, for it effectively ‘would penalize a client for doing what the privilege is designed to encourage—consulting a lawyer for the purpose of achieving law compliance.’” In re PDS, 831 A.2d at 909 (quoting Restatement (Thir | 1 | 2025–2025 |
United States v. William H. White, Sr., United States of America v. Lester H. Finotti, Jr.
green
1 sentence2003We adhere to the view that the exception applies so long as the attorney-client communications “further a crime, fraud or other misconduct.” White, 281 U.S.App.D.C. at 43 , 887 F.2d at 271 . | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Farrell v. United States
green
1 sentence1991NOTES [1] Brooks' other principal contention is that the trial judge should have conducted an inquiry pursuant to Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811 (D.C.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1006 , 99 S.Ct. 621 , 58 L.Ed.2d 683 (1978), and Farrell v. United States, 391 A.2d 755 (D.C.1978) when Brooks, following jury selection, expressed dissatisfaction with his assigned attorney. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Stone v. United States
green
1 sentence1991NOTES [1] Brooks' other principal contention is that the trial judge should have conducted an inquiry pursuant to Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811 (D.C.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1006 , 99 S.Ct. 621 , 58 L.Ed.2d 683 (1978), and Farrell v. United States, 391 A.2d 755 (D.C.1978) when Brooks, following jury selection, expressed dissatisfaction with his assigned attorney. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Monroe v. United States
green
1 sentence1991NOTES [1] Brooks' other principal contention is that the trial judge should have conducted an inquiry pursuant to Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811 (D.C.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1006 , 99 S.Ct. 621 , 58 L.Ed.2d 683 (1978), and Farrell v. United States, 391 A.2d 755 (D.C.1978) when Brooks, following jury selection, expressed dissatisfaction with his assigned attorney. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Monroe v. United States
green
1 sentence1991NOTES [1] Brooks' other principal contention is that the trial judge should have conducted an inquiry pursuant to Monroe v. United States, 389 A.2d 811 (D.C.), cert. denied, 439 U.S. 1006 , 99 S.Ct. 621 , 58 L.Ed.2d 683 (1978), and Farrell v. United States, 391 A.2d 755 (D.C.1978) when Brooks, following jury selection, expressed dissatisfaction with his assigned attorney. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
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.