9 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1956–2016 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 |
|---|---|---|
York v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2002At a minimum, he says, the question is whether such court-ordered reimbursement to “itself’ creates “an appearance of bias or prejudice [in favor of finding contempt] sufficient to permit the average citizen reasonably to question the [court’s] impartiality.” York v. United States, 785 A.2d 651, 655 (D.C.2001) (citing the Code of JudiCial CoNduct FOR the DistRict of Columbia Courts, Canon 3 (1995)). | 1 | 1 |
Charles Adamovic v. Metme Corporation, Daniel Allen, and Steven M. Soblegreen1 sentence1997Put another way, “the scales tip in favor of arbitration when we construe an arbitration clause, but only after we find, as an initial matter, that an enforceable arbitration clause exists.” Adamovic v. METME Corp., 961 F.2d 652, 654 (7th Cir.1992) (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Taylor v. Taylorgreen1 sentence1996We emphasize, however, the caveat the Taylor court itself gave as a preface to its discussion of the factors: “The following discussion of factors particularly relevant to a consideration of joint custody is in no way intended to minimize the importance of considering all factors and all options before arriving at a decision.” Id. at 970. 5 The recent amendments providing for joint custody contain a list of nonexclusive factors similar to the ones identified in Taylor . | 1 | 1 |
McKethean v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritygreen1 sentence1991For a recent discussion of the doctrine of superseding cause, see McKethean v. WMATA, supra, 588 A.2d at 716 (intervening negligent act breaks the chain of causation if it is not “reasonably foreseeable” or sequence of events is “highly extraordinary in retrospect,”) citing, inter alia, Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317 (D.C.1980). | 1 | 1 |
Korff v. G AND G CORP.green2 sentences1964NOTES [1] The record before us is extremely abbreviated and many of the above stated facts were obtained by examination of the two original files in the trial court. [2] See, for example, the discussion of the rule in Korff v. G and G Corporation, 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 (1956). [3] See Annotation, "Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending." 84 A.L.R.2d 421 . [4] See, e. g., Engle v. Manchester, 46 App. D.C. 220 (1917); Church v. Church, 50 App.D.C. 23 1964NOTES [1] The record before us is extremely abbreviated and many of the above stated facts were obtained by examination of the two original files in the trial court. [2] See, for example, the discussion of the rule in Korff v. G and G Corporation, 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 (1956). [3] See Annotation, "Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending." 84 A.L.R.2d 421 . [4] See, e. g., Engle v. Manchester, 46 App. D.C. 220 (1917); Church v. Church, 50 App.D.C. 23 | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Frederick Renee Ruffin v. Antoine Maurice Roberts
green
1 sentence2016Citing this court’s decision in Ruffin v. Roberts, 89 A.3d 502 (D.C.2014), Judge Iscoe stated that the “trial court does not have authority to order third-party visitation” and thus that “there cannot be third-party visitation ordered in this case.” Consequently, he orally denied Littman’s motions for contempt “because contempt of Court is for willful violation of a lawful court order” and “[i]n this case, the court order is not *93 lawfully imposed.” 6 Thereafter, consistent with the discussion at the hearing, Judge Iscoe issued a written order holding, based on Ruffin , that the trial court | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc.
green
2 sentences2002Discussion The issue before us is whether, upon adjudging a person in civil contempt for disobeying an injunction against the unauthorized practice of law, this court may order the person to pay attorney’s fees of members of the court’s own instrumentality, the CUPL. 18 Banks argues that the issue implicates hig due process right *1005 to “an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases,” Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 , 100 S.Ct. 1610 , 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980), by asking whether the court, in effect, may fund activities of its own regulators from the pocke 2002Discussion The issue before us is whether, upon adjudging a person in civil contempt for disobeying an injunction against the unauthorized practice of law, this court may order the person to pay attorney’s fees of members of the court’s own instrumentality, the CUPL. 18 Banks argues that the issue implicates hig due process right *1005 to “an impartial and disinterested tribunal in both civil and criminal cases,” Marshall v. Jerrico, Inc., 446 U.S. 238, 242 , 100 S.Ct. 1610 , 64 L.Ed.2d 182 (1980), by asking whether the court, in effect, may fund activities of its own regulators from the pocke | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Moss v. Stockard
green
2 sentences1995In the meantime, in Moss, 580 A.2d at 1018 n. 12, this court noted that the petition for rehearing in Thompson I was pending and that, as a consequence, the discussion of immunity in that case could become moot. 1995Id. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Lacy v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1991For a recent discussion of the doctrine of superseding cause, see McKethean v. WMATA, supra, 588 A.2d at 716 (intervening negligent act breaks the chain of causation if it is not “reasonably foreseeable” or sequence of events is “highly extraordinary in retrospect,”) citing, inter alia, Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317 (D.C.1980). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Adams v. F. W. Woolworth Co.
green
2 sentences1982Woolworth Co., 257 N.Y.S. 776 , 144 Misc. 27 (Sup.Ct.1932). 1982Woolworth Co., 257 N.Y.S. 776 , 144 Misc. 27 (Sup.Ct.1932). | 1 | 1982–1982 |
Church v. Church
green
2 sentences1964NOTES [1] The record before us is extremely abbreviated and many of the above stated facts were obtained by examination of the two original files in the trial court. [2] See, for example, the discussion of the rule in Korff v. G and G Corporation, 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 (1956). [3] See Annotation, "Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending." 84 A.L.R.2d 421 . [4] See, e. g., Engle v. Manchester, 46 App. D.C. 220 (1917); Church v. Church, 50 App.D.C. 23 1964NOTES [1] The record before us is extremely abbreviated and many of the above stated facts were obtained by examination of the two original files in the trial court. [2] See, for example, the discussion of the rule in Korff v. G and G Corporation, 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 (1956). [3] See Annotation, "Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending." 84 A.L.R.2d 421 . [4] See, e. g., Engle v. Manchester, 46 App. D.C. 220 (1917); Church v. Church, 50 App.D.C. 23 | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Engle v. Manchester
green
1 sentence1964NOTES [1] The record before us is extremely abbreviated and many of the above stated facts were obtained by examination of the two original files in the trial court. [2] See, for example, the discussion of the rule in Korff v. G and G Corporation, 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 (1956). [3] See Annotation, "Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending." 84 A.L.R.2d 421 . [4] See, e. g., Engle v. Manchester, 46 App. D.C. 220 (1917); Church v. Church, 50 App.D.C. 23 | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Government of the Dominican Republic v. Hal Roach, Jr., Individually and Trading as Radio News Service Corporation
green
1 sentence1964NOTES [1] The record before us is extremely abbreviated and many of the above stated facts were obtained by examination of the two original files in the trial court. [2] See, for example, the discussion of the rule in Korff v. G and G Corporation, 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 (1956). [3] See Annotation, "Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending." 84 A.L.R.2d 421 . [4] See, e. g., Engle v. Manchester, 46 App. D.C. 220 (1917); Church v. Church, 50 App.D.C. 23 | 1 | 1964–1964 |
International Typographical Union v. National Labor Relations Board
green
2 sentences1964NOTES [1] The record before us is extremely abbreviated and many of the above stated facts were obtained by examination of the two original files in the trial court. [2] See, for example, the discussion of the rule in Korff v. G and G Corporation, 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 (1956). [3] See Annotation, "Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending." 84 A.L.R.2d 421 . [4] See, e. g., Engle v. Manchester, 46 App. D.C. 220 (1917); Church v. Church, 50 App.D.C. 23 1964NOTES [1] The record before us is extremely abbreviated and many of the above stated facts were obtained by examination of the two original files in the trial court. [2] See, for example, the discussion of the rule in Korff v. G and G Corporation, 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 (1956). [3] See Annotation, "Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending." 84 A.L.R.2d 421 . [4] See, e. g., Engle v. Manchester, 46 App. D.C. 220 (1917); Church v. Church, 50 App.D.C. 23 | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Nelson v. Sierra Construction Corp.
green
1 sentence1964NOTES [1] The record before us is extremely abbreviated and many of the above stated facts were obtained by examination of the two original files in the trial court. [2] See, for example, the discussion of the rule in Korff v. G and G Corporation, 21 N.J. 558 , 122 A.2d 889 (1956). [3] See Annotation, "Immunity from service of process as affected by relationship between subject matters of litigation in which process was issued, and litigation which nonresident served was attending." 84 A.L.R.2d 421 . [4] See, e. g., Engle v. Manchester, 46 App. D.C. 220 (1917); Church v. Church, 50 App.D.C. 23 | 1 | 1964–1964 |
Sterling v. Marshall
green
1 sentence1956For a discussion of this principle see Sterling v. Marshall, D.C.Mun.App., 54 A.2d 353 . | 1 | 1956–1956 |
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.