oral hearing (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

oral hearing in District of Columbia

10 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1978–2013 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
Hawkins v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1978 · cited in 4 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1985–2013
2 sentences

2013The trial court is responsible for conducting “an oral inquiry of the defendant himself in open court, his replies to which indicate that he understands the nature of his right to a jury trial and that he chooses to waive that right.” Hawkins, 385 A.2d at 747 .

1985The trial court is responsible for conducting “an oral inquiry of the defendant himself in open court, his replies to which indicate that he understands the nature of his right to a jury trial and that he chooses to waive that right.” Hawkins, 385 A.2d at 747 .

14
United States v. Ollie Baber, Jr.green
cadc · 1971 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2013–2013
1 sentence

2013Therefore, just as appellants do not have a constitutional right to oral argument because “there are cases in which it is reasonably certain from the record and the briefs of the parties that no useful purpose would be served by devoting the court’s time and that of both prosecution and defense counsel to an oral hearing,” United States v. Baber, 447 F.2d 1267, 1271 (D.C.Cir.1971), appellants do not have a right to disposition by a formally calendared merits panel.

11
Central Fidelity Bank v. McLellangreen
dc · 1989 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
1 sentence

1990Mr. Nolan, in contrast, was permitted to file an opposition challenging the application, and his request for an oral hearing on his objections was granted by the court, which then made findings on each of his objections. “[Wjhere a contractual agreement expressly provides for the payment of attorney’s fees, the trial court’s discretion is limited to ascertaining what amount constitutes a ‘reasonable’ fee award.” Central Fidelity Bank v. McLellan, 563 A.2d 358, 360 (D.C.1989).

11
Gray Panthers v. Richard S. Schweiker, Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Servicesgreen
cadc · 1981 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1982–1982
2 sentences

1982Although the question is unresolved as to whether an oral hearing is one of the “fundamental elements” of procedural due process, Gray Panthers v. Schweiker, - U.S.App.D.C. -, -, 652 F.2d 146, 163-165 (1981); Friendly, supra note 13, at 1281 & n.79, we conclude that under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test a police officer is entitled to an informal oral hearing 17 before his right to administrative sick leave is finally terminated. "[Wjritten submissions do not afford the flexibility of oral presentations; they do not permit the recipient to mold his argument to the issues the decision ma

1982The [oral] hearing requirement and many of the additional safeguards that due process may require in particular circumstances also serve as an institutional check on arbitrary or impermissible action .... ****** A third and perhaps most important reason for generally insisting upon an oral hearing requirement is that no other procedure so effectively fosters a belief that one has been dealt with fairly, even if there remains a disagreement with the result .... [Gray Panthers v. Schweiker, supra at 162.] To date, “the Supreme Court has ... not expressly upheld any process finally disposing [in

11
Brumbaugh v. Gompersgreen
cadc · 1920 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1981–1981
1 sentence

1981See Brumaugh v. Gompers, 50 U.S.App.D.C. 130 , 269 F. 472 (1920).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (12)

CaseCitedYears
Banks v. United States green
dc · 1970
2 sentences

2013“The trial judge must also assure that such waiver is contained in the record as it occurred....” Banks, 262 A.2d at 111 .

1992The appellate record, as in [Frederick] Jackson, contained an entry on the back of the information reading “Jury Trial Demand Withdrawn.” Although there was no evidence of an oral waiver in open court, this court affirmed Banks’ conviction upon the ground that “the discussion in open court at the first hearing about a jury trial for appellant and the official court entry on the information itself cured the absence from the transcript of any waiver.” Id.

41985–2013
Gregory v. United States neutral
dc · 1970
1 sentence

1992Less than a year after [Frederick] Jackson and Banks had sent out messages more readily reconcilable in result than in spirit, our court revisited the issue in Gregory v. United States, 271 A.2d 791 (D.C.1970) (per curiam).

11992–1992
Jackson v. United States green
dc · 1985
1 sentence

1992Id. at 747 (emphasis in original). 7 Seven years after Hawkins came [Edward] Jackson v. United States, 498 A.2d 185 (D.C.1985).

11992–1992
United States v. Reed green
dc · 1942
2 sentences

1990Regarding the nature of proof of reasonableness of a fee, we observed in Central Fidelity that our prior decision in United States v. Reed, 31 A.2d 673 (D.C.1942), “imposes no absolute rule but rather states that if the court deems it necessary, or if either party desires, testimony may be taken as to the nature of services rendered or the reasonable value thereof.” Id. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

1990Regarding the nature of proof of reasonableness of a fee, we observed in Central Fidelity that our prior decision in United States v. Reed, 31 A.2d 673 (D.C.1942), “imposes no absolute rule but rather states that if the court deems it necessary, or if either party desires, testimony may be taken as to the nature of services rendered or the reasonable value thereof.” Id. (emphasis added; internal quotation marks and citation omitted).

11990–1990
Dameron v. Capitol House Associates Ltd. Partnership green
dc · 1981
2 sentences

1986Therefore, what began as a parallel, “equitable proceeding” effecting “no permanent disposition of property” pending resolution of the possessory action, Dameron, 431 A.2d at 584 , has become a money claim — an action at law — for withheld rent (or unliquidated damages), answered by a Javins defense seeking an abatement.

1986Therefore, what began as a parallel, "equitable proceeding" effecting "no permanent disposition of property" pending resolution of the possessory action, Dameron, 431 A.2d at 584 , has become a money claim—an action at law—for withheld rent (or unliquidated damages), answered by a Javins defense seeking an abatement.

11986–1986
Goss v. Lopez green
scotus · 1975
2 sentences

1982See Friendly, supra note 13, at 1287-88; Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 583 , 95 S.Ct. 729, 740 , 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 418 U.S. at 569-70 , 94 S.Ct. 2981 -82.

1982See Friendly, supra note 13, at 1287-88; Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 583 , 95 S.Ct. 729, 740 , 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 418 U.S. at 569-70 , 94 S.Ct. 2981 -82.

11982–1982
Goldberg v. Kelly green
scotus · 1970
2 sentences

1982Although the question is unresolved as to whether an oral hearing is one of the “fundamental elements” of procedural due process, Gray Panthers v. Schweiker, - U.S.App.D.C. -, -, 652 F.2d 146, 163-165 (1981); Friendly, supra note 13, at 1281 & n.79, we conclude that under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test a police officer is entitled to an informal oral hearing 17 before his right to administrative sick leave is finally terminated. "[Wjritten submissions do not afford the flexibility of oral presentations; they do not permit the recipient to mold his argument to the issues the decision ma

1982Although the question is unresolved as to whether an oral hearing is one of the “fundamental elements” of procedural due process, Gray Panthers v. Schweiker, - U.S.App.D.C. -, -, 652 F.2d 146, 163-165 (1981); Friendly, supra note 13, at 1281 & n.79, we conclude that under the Mathews v. Eldridge balancing test a police officer is entitled to an informal oral hearing 17 before his right to administrative sick leave is finally terminated. "[Wjritten submissions do not afford the flexibility of oral presentations; they do not permit the recipient to mold his argument to the issues the decision ma

11982–1982
Wolff v. McDonnell green
scotus · 1974
1 sentence

1982See Friendly, supra note 13, at 1287-88; Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 583 , 95 S.Ct. 729, 740 , 42 L.Ed.2d 725 (1975); Wolff v. McDonnell, supra, 418 U.S. at 569-70 , 94 S.Ct. 2981 -82.

11982–1982
Hicks v. United States green
dc · 1972
1 sentence

1978The government relies on two pre-Jackson cases, Hensley v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 155 A.2d 77 (1959), aff’d, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 242 , 281 F.2d 605 (1960), and Eliachar v. United States, D.C.App., 229 A.2d 451 (1967), and on a post -Jackson case, Hicks v. United States, D.C.App., 296 A.2d 615 (1972).

11978–1978
Edward H. Hensley v. United States green
cadc · 1960
1 sentence

1978The government relies on two pre-Jackson cases, Hensley v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 155 A.2d 77 (1959), aff’d, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 242 , 281 F.2d 605 (1960), and Eliachar v. United States, D.C.App., 229 A.2d 451 (1967), and on a post -Jackson case, Hicks v. United States, D.C.App., 296 A.2d 615 (1972).

11978–1978
Hensley v. United States green
dc · 1959
1 sentence

1978The government relies on two pre-Jackson cases, Hensley v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 155 A.2d 77 (1959), aff’d, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 242 , 281 F.2d 605 (1960), and Eliachar v. United States, D.C.App., 229 A.2d 451 (1967), and on a post -Jackson case, Hicks v. United States, D.C.App., 296 A.2d 615 (1972).

11978–1978
Eliachar v. United States green
dc · 1967
1 sentence

1978The government relies on two pre-Jackson cases, Hensley v. United States, D.C.Mun.App., 155 A.2d 77 (1959), aff’d, 108 U.S.App.D.C. 242 , 281 F.2d 605 (1960), and Eliachar v. United States, D.C.App., 229 A.2d 451 (1967), and on a post -Jackson case, Hicks v. United States, D.C.App., 296 A.2d 615 (1972).

11978–1978

Statutes the citing opinions construe

DC § D.C. Code § 16-705 (5) DC § D.C. Code § 17-305 (3)

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.

Where else courts name it

TX 308 (1939–2026) OH 217 (1966–2026) NY 105 (1906–2026) CA 91 (1864–2025) AL 57 (1915–2012) IL 55 (1898–2025) GA 48 (1959–2025) FL 34 (1883–2026) WA 32 (1917–2026) TN 21 (1941–2025) MD 17 (1908–2014) MI 16 (1967–2025) MO 16 (1933–2025) VA 14 (1846–2024) KS 14 (1875–2024) IN 13 (1881–2018) MS 12 (1956–2021) OK 12 (1901–1995) PA 11 (1954–2024) CT 11 (1954–2018) KY 10 (1920–2011) NE 10 (1930–2026) ID 10 (1894–1994) NM 10 (1990–2024) WI 10 (1992–2022) DC 10 (1978–2013) LA 9 (1929–2024) WV 9 (1908–2022) MA 9 (1926–2016) VT 8 (1981–2019) OR 8 (1992–2018) HI 8 (1980–2022) MN 7 (1923–2009) IA 7 (1897–2015) NC 6 (1972–2017) NJ 6 (1953–2017) NV 5 (1914–2015) MT 5 (1928–1994) AR 5 (1886–2016) AZ 4 (1949–2012) CO 4 (1974–2009) SD 3 (1990–2022) SC 3 (1993–2011) AK 3 (1986–2006) ND 3 (1917–2014) ME 2 (1967–2017) NH 2 (1974–2007) WY 2 (1987–1993) RI 2 (1991–1994) UT 2 (2011–2020)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check