10 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1914–2019 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 |
|---|---|---|
Mahler v. Ebygreen2 sentences2018Even the 1 When applying other constitutional protections, the Supreme Court has deemed it ―well settled that deportation, while it may be burdensome and severe for the alien, is not a punishment.‖ Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 39 (1924). 2018Even the 1 When applying other constitutional protections, the Supreme Court has deemed it ―well settled that deportation, while it may be burdensome and severe for the alien, is not a punishment.‖ Mahler v. Eby, 264 U.S. 32, 39 (1924). | 2 | 2 |
Sturdza v. United Arab Emiratesgreen1 sentence2019"Although the operation of this rule may appear to be harsh and disproportionate in some cases, we have uniformly rejected appeals to deviate from or mitigate it; the potential unfair applications of the rule at the margins have not persuaded us to sacrifice the benefits of a clear-cut, unmistakable requirement, with equally clear consequences for noncompliance." Sturdza , 11 A.3d at 257 (internal quotation marks omitted). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Everett W. Thompson, Jr.green2 sentences1998In keeping with a line of decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, I have considerable doubt whether the trial court's particular use here of the "jury box" system for selecting the jury failed to "adequately protect[] [appellants'] rights." United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442, 451 (2d Cir.1996). 1998In keeping with a line of decisions by the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, I have considerable doubt whether the trial court’s particular use here of the “jury box” system for selecting the jury failed to “adequately protect! ] [appellants’] rights.” United States v. Thompson, 76 F.3d 442, 451 (2d Cir.1996). | 1 | 1 |
The Government of India and the Food Corporation of India v. Cook Industries, Inc. And Cook and Companygreen1 sentence1988This court continued, “ ‘[i]n order to grant a disqualification motion, a court should not require proof that an attorney actually had access to or received privileged information while representing the client in a prior case.’ ” 486 A.2d at 42 n. 5 (quoting Government of India v. Cook Industries, Inc., 569 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir.1978)). | 1 | 1 |
Clegg v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1944See Clegg v. United States, 10 Cir., 112 F.2d 886 , where it was held that though the judgment was erroneous, and the court was mistaken as to the facts, or misconceived the law, or disregarded public policy, it would still bar a second action. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. William Underwood, Paul Messino, Christopher B. Messino, Christopher Richard Messino, and Clement Messino
green
2 sentences1998The court in Underwood, supra, while reaffirming “a broad rule of automatic reversal” for impairment of the peremptory challenge right, recognized the need to limit the operation of the rule by “narrowly defining ‘denial or impairment’ ” of the right. 122 F.3d at 392 -93 n. 3. 1998The court in Underwood, supra, while reaffirming “a broad rule of automatic reversal” for impairment of the peremptory challenge right, recognized the need to limit the operation of the rule by “narrowly defining ‘denial or impairment’ ” of the right. 122 F.3d at 392 -93 n. 3. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
T. C. Theatre Corp. v. Warner Bros. Pictures, Inc.
green
1 sentence1988Theatre, supra, 113 F.Supp. at 268-69 ) explained the operation of the rule. “ ‘[T]he former client need show no more than that the matters embraced within the pending suit wherein his former attorney appears on behalf of his adversary are substantially related to the matters or cause of action wherein the attorney previously represented him, the former client.’ ” 486 A.2d at 42 n. 5. | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Brown v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustment
green
2 sentences1988Theatre, supra, 113 F.Supp. at 268-69 ) explained the operation of the rule. “ ‘[T]he former client need show no more than that the matters embraced within the pending suit wherein his former attorney appears on behalf of his adversary are substantially related to the matters or cause of action wherein the attorney previously represented him, the former client.’ ” 486 A.2d at 42 n. 5. 1988This court continued, “ ‘[i]n order to grant a disqualification motion, a court should not require proof that an attorney actually had access to or received privileged information while representing the client in a prior case.’ ” 486 A.2d at 42 n. 5 (quoting Government of India v. Cook Industries, Inc., 569 F.2d 737, 740 (2d Cir.1978)). | 1 | 1988–1988 |
Dean v. Tusculum College
green
1 sentence1981Ademption will not occur “where, as in [ Brinker, supra], the intention of the testator, as drawn from the will, clearly indicates that if the devised property be sold during testator’s lifetime, the proceeds are to stand in its place . . . . ” Dean, supra at 305 , 195 F.2d at 797 ; See Part III.A. supra. As indicated in Part III.B., supra, however, the language of Thomas Wyman’s will, leaving his brother “the remainder due, if any,” on the note, does not bring this specific bequest within the exception. | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Cohen v. Holmes
green
1 sentence1978Cohen v. Holmes, supra at 148 . | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Parsons v. Hill
green
1 sentence1968If the delinquency continues for 6 months the complaint, counterclaim, cross-claim, or third-party complaint of said party, as the case may he, shall stand dismissed without prejudice, but the time in which the delinquent party may take appropriate action to reinstate under Rule 60(b) shall start to run from the entry of dismissal by the clerk, or, upon appropriate motion by the court, and the clerk in either case shall serve notice thereof by mail upon every party not in default for failure to appear, of which mailing he shall make an entry in the docket. 8 . 15 App.D.C. at p. 551 . 9 . | 1 | 1968–1968 |
Moore v. McKinlay & Garrioch
neutral
1 sentence1914“A warranty will not be implied, except in cases where goods are sold at sea, where the party has no opportunity to examine them, or in case of a sale by sample, or of provisions for domestic use. * * *, And the fact that the plaintiff had an opportunity and declined to inspect the seeds before accepting them takes the case from the operation of the rule of implied warranty.” Moore v. McKinlay, 5 Cal. 471 . | 1 | 1914–1914 |
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.