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.
10 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1981–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
cluster 490904green2 sentences2013See United States v. Butler, 262 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 134 , 822 F.2d 1191, 1196 (1987) (“[T]he trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact procedures by balancing the need to make a sufficient inquiry against the concern that the inquiry not create prejudicial effects by unduly magnifying the importance of an insignificant occurrence.”). 2005Williams, 262 U.S.App.D.C. at 127 , 822 F.2d at 1189 . "[T]he trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact procedures by balancing the need to make a sufficient inquiry against the concern that the inquiry not create prejudicial effects by unduly magnifying the importance of an insignificant occurrence.” United States v. Butler, 262 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 134 , 822 F.2d 1191, 1196 (1987). 14 . | 3 | 3 |
Al-Mahdi v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016Although a hearing is required and the government has the burden ―to demonstrate that the [jury‘s] contact with extraneous information was harmless or non-prejudicial[,] the extent and type of the trial court‘s investigation into the improper contact are confided to the court‘s discretion and reviewable only for abuse.‖ Id. (quoting Hill v. United States, 622 A.2d 680, 684 (D.C. 1993); Leeper v. United States, 579 A.2d 695, 699 (D.C. 1990)). ―There is ‗no per se rule that individual questioning of each juror is always required,‘ and ‗the trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact proced 2016“There is ‘no per se rule that individual questioning of each juror is always required,’ and ‘the trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact procedures by balancing the need to make a sufficient inquiry against the concern that the inquiry not create prejudicial effects by unduly magnifying the importance of an insignificant occurrence.’” Id. at 470– 71 (quoting Al-Mahdi v. United States, 867 A.2d 1011, 1019 (D.C. 2005)). | 2 | 3 |
United States v. Butlergreen2 sentences2013See United States v. Butler, 262 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 134 , 822 F.2d 1191, 1196 (1987) (“[T]he trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact procedures by balancing the need to make a sufficient inquiry against the concern that the inquiry not create prejudicial effects by unduly magnifying the importance of an insignificant occurrence.”). 2005Williams, 262 U.S.App.D.C. at 127 , 822 F.2d at 1189 . "[T]he trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact procedures by balancing the need to make a sufficient inquiry against the concern that the inquiry not create prejudicial effects by unduly magnifying the importance of an insignificant occurrence.” United States v. Butler, 262 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 134 , 822 F.2d 1191, 1196 (1987). 14 . | 2 | 3 |
Leeper v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2016Although a hearing is required and the government has the burden ―to demonstrate that the [jury‘s] contact with extraneous information was harmless or non-prejudicial[,] the extent and type of the trial court‘s investigation into the improper contact are confided to the court‘s discretion and reviewable only for abuse.‖ Id. (quoting Hill v. United States, 622 A.2d 680, 684 (D.C. 1993); Leeper v. United States, 579 A.2d 695, 699 (D.C. 1990)). ―There is ‗no per se rule that individual questioning of each juror is always required,‘ and ‗the trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact proced 2016Although a hearing is required and the government has the burden ―to demonstrate that the [jury‘s] contact with extraneous information was harmless or non-prejudicial[,] the extent and type of the trial court‘s investigation into the improper contact are confided to the court‘s discretion and reviewable only for abuse.‖ Id. (quoting Hill v. United States, 622 A.2d 680, 684 (D.C. 1993); Leeper v. United States, 579 A.2d 695, 699 (D.C. 1990)). ―There is ‗no per se rule that individual questioning of each juror is always required,‘ and ‗the trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact proced | 1 | 2 |
Hill v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2016Although a hearing is required and the government has the burden ―to demonstrate that the [jury‘s] contact with extraneous information was harmless or non-prejudicial[,] the extent and type of the trial court‘s investigation into the improper contact are confided to the court‘s discretion and reviewable only for abuse.‖ Id. (quoting Hill v. United States, 622 A.2d 680, 684 (D.C. 1993); Leeper v. United States, 579 A.2d 695, 699 (D.C. 1990)). ―There is ‗no per se rule that individual questioning of each juror is always required,‘ and ‗the trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact proced | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Michael D. Tann v. United States
green
2 sentences2016In fact, we said in that case that ―[t]here is ‗no per se rule that individual questioning of each juror is always required,‘ and ‗the trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact procedures by balancing the need to make a sufficient inquiry against the concern that the inquiry not create prejudicial effects by unduly magnifying the importance of an insignificant occurrence.‘‖ Tann, supra, 127 A.3d at 470-71 . 2016In fact, we said in that case that ―[t]here is ‗no per se rule that individual questioning of each juror is always required,‘ and ‗the trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact procedures by balancing the need to make a sufficient inquiry against the concern that the inquiry not create prejudicial effects by unduly magnifying the importance of an insignificant occurrence.‘‖ Tann, supra, 127 A.3d at 470-71 . | 2 | 2016–2016 |
Medrano-Quiroz v. United States
green
1 sentence2016Although a hearing is required and the government has the burden ―to demonstrate that the [jury‘s] contact with extraneous information was harmless or non-prejudicial[,] the extent and type of the trial court‘s investigation into the improper contact are confided to the court‘s discretion and reviewable only for abuse.‖ Id. (quoting Hill v. United States, 622 A.2d 680, 684 (D.C. 1993); Leeper v. United States, 579 A.2d 695, 699 (D.C. 1990)). ―There is ‗no per se rule that individual questioning of each juror is always required,‘ and ‗the trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact proced | 1 | 2016–2016 |
United States v. Randolph Williams
green
1 sentence2005Williams, 262 U.S.App.D.C. at 127 , 822 F.2d at 1189 . "[T]he trial judge has broad discretion to fix the exact procedures by balancing the need to make a sufficient inquiry against the concern that the inquiry not create prejudicial effects by unduly magnifying the importance of an insignificant occurrence.” United States v. Butler, 262 U.S.App.D.C. 129, 134 , 822 F.2d 1191, 1196 (1987). 14 . | 1 | 2005–2005 |
New York v. Quarles
green
2 sentences2003The Court addressed the concern that the exception would “lessen the clarity” of the Miranda rule, stating that “in each case it will be circumscribed by the exigency which justifies it.” Id. 2003The Court addressed the concern that the exception would "lessen the clarity" of the Miranda rule, stating that "in each case it will be circumscribed by the exigency which justifies it." Id. | 1 | 2003–2003 |
Joyner v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
green
2 sentences1999In reaching our conclusion in Joyner v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 502 A.2d 1027 (D.C.1986), we noted the Director’s concern that a requirement of a specific job offer by the employer “would invite at least some claimants to adopt a passive, or even negative, attitude about pursuing re-employment.” Id. at 1031 . 1999In reaching our conclusion in Joyner v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 502 A.2d 1027 (D.C.1986), we noted the Director’s concern that a requirement of a specific job offer by the employer “would invite at least some claimants to adopt a passive, or even negative, attitude about pursuing re-employment.” Id. at 1031 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Harrington v. Moss
green
1 sentence1988For the purposes of primary jurisdiction, we conclude that intentional tort claims under the WCA should be governed by the same standards as the issue whether the injury occurred in the course of employment. 16 The concern of the rule set *750 forth in Harrington, supra, is the jurisdiction of the court, which depends on the coverage of the WCA. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Shaffer v. Heitner
green
2 sentences1981As the Supreme Court has stated, “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation ... [is] the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction.” Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 , 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2580 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) (footnote omitted). 9 These considerations assume greater significance when the defendant’s contacts with the forum arise out of a contractual arrangement with a forum plaintiff. 1981As the Supreme Court has stated, “the relationship among the defendant, the forum, and the litigation ... [is] the central concern of the inquiry into personal jurisdiction.” Shaffer v. Heitner, 433 U.S. 186, 204 , 97 S.Ct. 2569, 2580 , 53 L.Ed.2d 683 (1977) (footnote omitted). 9 These considerations assume greater significance when the defendant’s contacts with the forum arise out of a contractual arrangement with a forum plaintiff. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
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.