acknowledged defense (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

acknowledged defense in District of Columbia

9 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2026 2 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
In re: Petition of J.J. T.R.green
dc · 2015 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015The trial court acknowledged the presumption in favor of placing the child with a natural parent and applied the facts of this case to the five factors for determining whether terminating parental rights-is in the child’s best interest, pursuant to D.C.Code § 16-2363(b) (2012 Repl.); see generally In re J.J., 111 A.3d 1038 (D.C.2015).

2015The trial court acknowledged the presumption in favor of placing the child with a natural parent and applied the facts of this case to the five factors for determining whether terminating parental rights is in the child’s best interest, pursuant to D.C. 3 Code § 16-2353 (b) (2012 Repl.); see generally In re J.J., 111 A.3d 1038 (D.C. 2015).

11
Blackman v. Visiting Nurses Ass'ngreen
dc · 1997 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2005–2005
1 sentence

2005Though the court acknowledged this rule, it did not apply the requisite de novo standard applicable to questions of law, see Blackman v. Visiting Nurses Ass'n, 694 A.2d 865, 868 (D.C.1997), holding-instead that the magistrate judge did not abuse his discretion.

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 (5)

CaseCitedYears
Sanders v. United States green
scotus · 1963
2 sentences

2026Id. at 4 .

2025Id. at 4 .

22025–2026
McNeil v. Wisconsin green
scotus · 1991
2 sentences

1993McNeil, supra, ___ U.S. at ___, 111 S.Ct. at 2207 .

1993McNeil, supra, — U.S. at -, 111 S.Ct. at 2207 .

21993–1993
Battocchi v. Washington Hospital Center green
dc · 1990
1 sentence

1995Id.

11995–1995
Boddie v. Robinson green
dc · 1981
1 sentence

1992In Boddie the mailed notice of expiration of the redemption period erroneously listed the quadrant of the property owner’s address as “S.W.” instead of “N.W.,” thus violating the regulatory command that notice be mailed “to the last known address of the property owner as recorded in the real estate assessment records of the District.” Upon suit to set aside the tax deed, the defendant-appel- *44 lee argued that “this acknowledged error should not vitiate the sale because post office procedures corrected the District’s mistake.” 430 A.2d at 522 .

11992–1992
Best v. United States green
dc · 1974
2 sentences

1986On appeal, this court acknowledged that defense counsel made an incomplete and therefore "deficien[t]’’ proffer by failing to show how the hitting demonstrated the officer’s bias and how bias "was ultimately related to the question of guilt or innocence.” 328 A.2d at 382 .

1986On appeal, this court acknowledged that defense counsel made an incomplete and therefore "deficien[t]" proffer by failing to show how the hitting demonstrated the officer's bias and how bias "was ultimately related to the question of guilt or innocence." 328 A.2d at 382 .

11986–1986

Where else courts name it

CA 44 (1971–2026) IL 38 (1875–2025) TX 34 (1859–2025) NY 25 (1806–2013) PA 23 (1843–2025) CT 20 (1884–2019) MI 17 (1871–2025) NJ 16 (1922–2026) IN 14 (1871–2019) OH 13 (1903–2023) LA 13 (1909–2019) FL 11 (1958–2015) VA 11 (1883–2023) AL 11 (1844–2007) DC 9 (1986–2026) OR 8 (1998–2023) MD 8 (1851–2022) MO 8 (1887–2010) NC 8 (1909–2020) WA 8 (1984–2009) WI 8 (1975–2024) GA 7 (1908–2019) SC 6 (1948–2007) AR 6 (1973–2010) AZ 6 (1997–2024) IA 5 (1930–2018) OK 5 (1984–2010) WY 5 (1993–2007) MS 5 (1874–2024) CO 4 (1984–2012) ME 4 (1971–1979) UT 4 (2003–2019) NM 4 (1982–2021) SD 3 (1894–2006) WV 3 (1977–2007) RI 3 (1989–2004) ID 3 (1984–2015) KS 3 (1893–1999) KY 3 (1895–2023) MA 3 (1997–2019) TN 3 (1853–1999) MN 2 (1982–2015) NE 2 (1888–2015) HI 2 (1859–2012) MT 2 (1987–2025)

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