Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
9 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1991–2022 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Guardianship and Conservatorship of Simgreen2 sentences1991See also Rosen v. NLRB, 236 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 308 , 735 F.2d 564, 574-75 (1984) (no waiver possible where attorney was only individual capable of rebutting arguments made by witnesses for the opposing party); In re Guardianship of Sim, 225 Neb. 181, 205 , 403 N.W.2d 721, 737 (1987) (possibility of ethical violation where same person was both attorney and guardian for an Alzheimer’s patient and testified regarding substantive matters); Dell v. Dell, No. L-86-133, 1986 WL 15064 (Ohio Ct.App. 1991See also Rosen v. NLRB, 236 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 308 , 735 F.2d 564, 574-75 (1984) (no waiver possible where attorney was only individual capable of rebutting arguments made by witnesses for the opposing party); In re Guardianship of Sim, 225 Neb. 181, 205 , 403 N.W.2d 721, 737 (1987) (possibility of ethical violation where same person was both attorney and guardian for an Alzheimer’s patient and testified regarding substantive matters); Dell v. Dell, No. L-86-133, 1986 WL 15064 (Ohio Ct.App. | 3 | 3 |
Eleanor Groper v. Barry P. Taffgreen2 sentences1991DR 5-102(A) where attorney's testimony is necessary; if not, court has discretion to allow client to waive application of the disqualification rule) (citing Groper v. Taft, 230 U.S.App.D.C. 358, 361 , 717 F.2d 1415, 1418 (1983) (disqualification was proper where it became clear that attorney who had represented both a closely-held corporation and one of its officers in her individual capacity ought to be called as a witness in litigation to dissolve the corporation)). 1991DR 5-102(A) where attorney's testimony is necessary; if not, court has discretion to allow client to waive application of the disqualification rule) (citing Groper v. Taft, 230 U.S.App.D.C. 358, 361 , 717 F.2d 1415, 1418 (1983) (disqualification was proper where it became clear that attorney who had represented both a closely-held corporation and one of its officers in her individual capacity ought to be called as a witness in litigation to dissolve the corporation)). | 3 | 3 |
Paul R. Rosen, Esq. v. National Labor Relations Boardgreen2 sentences1991See also Rosen v. NLRB, 236 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 308 , 735 F.2d 564, 574-75 (1984) (no waiver possible where attorney was only individual capable of rebutting arguments made by witnesses for the opposing party); In re Guardianship of Sim, 225 Neb. 181, 205 , 403 N.W.2d 721, 737 (1987) (possibility of ethical violation where same person was both attorney and guardian for an Alzheimer’s patient and testified regarding substantive matters); Dell v. Dell, No. L-86-133, 1986 WL 15064 (Ohio Ct.App. 1991See also Rosen v. NLRB, 236 U.S.App.D.C. 298, 308 , 735 F.2d 564, 574-75 (1984) (no waiver possible where attorney was only individual capable of rebutting arguments made by witnesses for the opposing party); In re Guardianship of Sim, 225 Neb. 181, 205 , 403 N.W.2d 721, 737 (1987) (possibility of ethical violation where same person was both attorney and guardian for an Alzheimer’s patient and testified regarding substantive matters); Dell v. Dell, No. L-86-133, 1986 WL 15064 (Ohio Ct.App. | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Johnie M. Owensgreen1 sentence2022Cir.1997) (“More than one court has recognized the sensible principle that ‘[a] defendant cannot take his chances with a judge and then, if he thinks that the sentence is too severe, secure a disqualification and a hearing before another judge.’” (quoting United States v. Owens, 902 F.2d 1154, 1156 (4th Cir. 1990))). 17 what appellant portrays as indicia of bias at his sentencing arising from, or explainable by, the judge’s past relationship with the Asbury United Methodist Church. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Scott v. United States
green
2 sentences2010Thus, "this case ... requires a new trial in order to assure the continued public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary." Scott, 559 A.2d at 756 . 2010Thus, “this case ... requires a new trial in order to assure the continued public confidence in the integrity of the judiciary.” Scott, 559 A.2d at 756 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Liljeberg v. Health Services Acquisition Corp.
green
2 sentences2010The very purpose [of the disqualification requirement] is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.” 486 U.S. at 864-65 , 108 S.Ct. 2194 (emphasis added). 2010The very purpose [of the disqualification requirement] is to promote confidence in the judiciary by avoiding even the appearance of impropriety whenever possible.” 486 U.S. at 864-65 , 108 S.Ct. 2194 (emphasis added). | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Harris v. Harris
green
2 sentences1993It then laid down a rule to govern future cases: If it is established on appeal that the disqualification was in error ... the burden will be on the party advantaged by the erroneous disqualification to prove that the disqualification did not influence the outcome of the litigation. *1160 Id. at 319-320 , 529 A.2d at 360-361 . 1993It then laid down a rule to govern future cases: If it is established on appeal that the disqualification was in error ... the burden will be on the party advantaged by the erroneous disqualification to prove that the disqualification did not influence the outcome of the litigation. *1160 Id. at 319-320 , 529 A.2d at 360-361 . | 2 | 1993–1993 |
Plummer v. United States
green
1 sentence2022However, at various points in his brief, appellant concentrates his argument on judicial actions that first occurred in the course of the sentencing hearing itself — i.e., things appellant arguably did not know or foresee when he declined Judge Cushenberry’s offers to recuse himself in advance of the hearing — and focuses on 13 Plummer, 43 A.3d at 270 . 14 Cf. S.E.C. v. Loving Spirit Found. | 1 | 2022–2022 |
Laughlin v. United States
green
1 sentence2019Cir. 1956) ("[R]espondents are not entitled to sit back until [a] Board decision is imminent and at their convenience come forward with a claim for disqualification of a Board Member based upon alleged facts within respondents' knowledge long prior to consideration of this case by the Board.") (internal quotation marks and citations omitted); Laughlin v. United States , 151 F.2d 281 , 284 (App.D.C. 1945) (finding waiver of a disqualification claim where "the alleged bias on which disqualification was sought had been known to appellant for years" but he failed to raise it in a timely manner at | 1 | 2019–2019 |
FRIENDS OF MCMILLAN PARK, MCMILLAN COALITION FOR SUSTAINABLE AGRICULTURE, and DC FOR REASONABLE DEVELOPMENT v. DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA ZONING COMMISSION and MAYOR'S AGENT FOR HISTORIC PRESERVATION, and VISION MCMILLAN PARTNERS, LLC, Intervenor.
green
1 sentence2019FOMP I , 149 A.3d at 1041 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
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.
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.