added factors (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

added factors in District of Columbia

9 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2009 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 (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Mozingo v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1986 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1990–1990
2 sentences

1990See also Mozingo v. United States, 503 A.2d 1238 (D.C.1986), where probable cause to arrest was found when appellant removed a white container from a bag, emptied a number of pills, returned the pills to the container, and then gave the container to a man in exchange for some money.

1990See also Mozingo v. United States, 503 A.2d 1238 (D.C.1986), where probable cause to arrest was found when appellant removed a white container from a bag, emptied a number of pills, returned the pills to the container, and then gave the container to a man in exchange for some money.

22
Hasty v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1995 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2004–2004
1 sentence

2004It was then that the court added to the instruction the language challenged on appeal to the effect that “[i]f the defendant honestly and reasonably believes that he is acting in self-defense, self defense is a defense to both second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.” (Emphasis added.) Under the circumstances, appellant contends, he could do no more than he did, i.e., stating that “without expanding further I will disagree and object to that.” However, he contends that, in light of defense counsel’s focus during the discussions the previous day, the objection he raised was necessarily

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 (7)

CaseCitedYears
Illinois v. Wardlow green
scotus · 2000
2 sentences

2007In Wardlow, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that: “An individual’s presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime.” Id., 528 U.S. at 124 , 120 S.Ct. 673 (citing Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979)).

2007In Wardlow, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that: “An individual’s presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime.” Id., 528 U.S. at 124 , 120 S.Ct. 673 (citing Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979)).

22006–2007
Brown v. Texas green
scotus · 1979
2 sentences

2007In Wardlow, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that: “An individual’s presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime.” Id., 528 U.S. at 124 , 120 S.Ct. 673 (citing Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979)).

2007In Wardlow, supra, the Supreme Court of the United States declared that: “An individual’s presence in an area of expected criminal activity, standing alone, is not enough to support a reasonable, particularized suspicion that the person is committing a crime.” Id., 528 U.S. at 124 , 120 S.Ct. 673 (citing Brown v. Texas, 443 U.S. 47 , 99 S.Ct. 2637 , 61 L.Ed.2d 357 (1979)).

22006–2007
George Albert Williams v. District of Columbia green
cadc · 1969
2 sentences

2009The “something more”, was the added requirement that the objectionable language “be spoken in circumstances which threaten a breach of the peace.” Id. at 64, 419 F.2d at 646 .

2009The "something more", was the added requirement that the objectionable language "be spoken in circumstances which threaten a breach of the peace." Id. at 64, 419 F.2d at 646 .

12009–2009
Russell v. United States green
dc · 1997
2 sentences

2004It was then that the court added to the instruction the language challenged on appeal to the effect that “[i]f the defendant honestly and reasonably believes that he is acting in self-defense, self defense is a defense to both second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.” (Emphasis added.) Under the circumstances, appellant contends, he could do no more than he did, i.e., stating that “without expanding further I will disagree and object to that.” However, he contends that, in light of defense counsel’s focus during the discussions the previous day, the objection he raised was necessarily

2004It was then that the court added to the instruction the language challenged on appeal to the effect that “[i]f the defendant honestly and reasonably believes that he is acting in self-defense, self defense is a defense to both second-degree murder and voluntary manslaughter.” (Emphasis added.) Under the circumstances, appellant contends, he could do no more than he did, i.e., stating that “without expanding further I will disagree and object to that.” However, he contends that, in light of defense counsel’s focus during the discussions the previous day, the objection he raised was necessarily

12004–2004
In Re Chisholm green
dc · 1996
1 sentence

1997Chisholm, 679 A.2d at 503-05 .

11997–1997
Frederick A. Young v. United States green
cadc · 1962
1 sentence

1996Id.

11996–1996
Adams v. United States green
dc · 1969
1 sentence

1984As the court’s analysis in Adams, supra, makes clear, the added requirement of a threat of breach of the peace was necessary to avoid infringing on the First Amendment freedom of assembly.

11984–1984

Where else courts name it

PA 36 (1908–2026) CA 29 (1861–2025) NJ 27 (1942–2023) NY 22 (1876–2018) TX 21 (1916–2021) ND 15 (1994–2018) LA 12 (1914–2015) CT 11 (1963–2004) MI 10 (1897–2024) WA 10 (1932–2017) DC 9 (1984–2009) FL 8 (1930–2014) WI 8 (1969–2018) IA 7 (1917–2026) MO 7 (1916–2017) IL 7 (1914–2024) OH 6 (2005–2026) IN 6 (1875–1987) MD 6 (1938–2013) AK 6 (1983–2021) AL 5 (1934–2017) DE 4 (1986–2022) AR 4 (1944–2017) OK 4 (1975–2017) CO 4 (1981–2017) OR 3 (1977–2025) NC 3 (1904–1990) VA 3 (1941–2000) GA 3 (1981–2004) KS 3 (1923–1979) MA 3 (2000–2019) WV 3 (1893–1989) KY 3 (1928–2015) UT 2 (2007–2024) VT 2 (1996–2006) TN 2 (1924–1982) RI 2 (2000–2010) ME 2 (2006–2014) SD 2 (1934–2000) MN 2 (1983–1990) AZ 2 (1996–1999)

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