Ford motion (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

Ford motion in District of Columbia

9 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1992–2007 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
cluster 681314green
ca8 · 1994 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Co., 38 F.3d 1456, 1463-64 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that reasonable rejection of an employment offer is a special circumstance under the Ford rule that permits recovery of back-pay damages); Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., 892 F.2d 1481, 1493 (10th Cir.1989) (noting that rejection of reinstatement offer, if reasonable under the circumstances, does not cut off back-pay liability).

2007Co., 38 F.3d 1456, 1463-64 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that reasonable rejection of an employment offer is a special circumstance under the Ford rule that permits recovery of back-pay damages); Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., 892 F.2d 1481, 1493 (10th Cir.1989) (noting that rejection of reinstatement offer, if reasonable under the circumstances, does not cut off back-pay liability).

11
Wilbur Toledo, Plaintiff-Appellant/cross-Appellee v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., Defendant-Appellee/cross-Appellantgreen
ca10 · 1989 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
2 sentences

2007Co., 38 F.3d 1456, 1463-64 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that reasonable rejection of an employment offer is a special circumstance under the Ford rule that permits recovery of back-pay damages); Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., 892 F.2d 1481, 1493 (10th Cir.1989) (noting that rejection of reinstatement offer, if reasonable under the circumstances, does not cut off back-pay liability).

2007Co., 38 F.3d 1456, 1463-64 (8th Cir.1994) (holding that reasonable rejection of an employment offer is a special circumstance under the Ford rule that permits recovery of back-pay damages); Toledo v. Nobel-Sysco, Inc., 892 F.2d 1481, 1493 (10th Cir.1989) (noting that rejection of reinstatement offer, if reasonable under the circumstances, does not cut off back-pay liability).

11
Bagley v. Foundation for the Preservation of Historic Georgetowngreen
dc · 1994 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2000–2000
1 sentence

2000We review such orders only for abuse of discretion, Bagley v. Foundation for the Presentation of Historic Georgetown, 647 A.2d 1110, 1115 (D.C.1994), and on this record we find none.

11
Smith v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authoritygreen
dc · 1993 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
2 sentences

1996See Smith, supra, 631 A.2d at 390 ; Sherman, supra, 653 A.2d at 869 .

1996See Smith, supra, 631 A.2d at 390 ; Sherman, supra, 653 A.2d at 869 .

11
Dixon v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1989 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1992–1992
1 sentence

1992Dixon v. United States, 565 A.2d 72, 76 (D.C.1989).

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 (9)

CaseCitedYears
Ford Motor Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission green
scotus · 1982
2 sentences

2007Under the Ford rule, the discrimination complainant must decide "whether to take the job offered by the [employer], retaining his rights to an award by the court of backpay accrued prior to the effective date of the offer, ... or, instead, whether to accept a more attractive job from another employer and the limitation of the claim for backpay to the damages that have already accrued.” Ford Motor Co., supra, 458 U.S. at 238 , 102 S.Ct. 3057 .

2007Under the Ford rule, the discrimination complainant must decide "whether to take the job offered by the [employer], retaining his rights to an award by the court of backpay accrued prior to the effective date of the offer, ... or, instead, whether to accept a more attractive job from another employer and the limitation of the claim for backpay to the damages that have already accrued.” Ford Motor Co., supra, 458 U.S. at 238 , 102 S.Ct. 3057 .

12007–2007
Williams v. United States green
dc · 2005
1 sentence

2007Williams, 884 A.2d at 594 n. 11. 19 .

12007–2007
In Re ALDRIDGE green
dc · 1993
1 sentence

2000Thoubboron v. Ford Motor Co., 624 A.2d 1210 (D.C.1993) (“Thoubboron I ”).

12000–2000
Sherman v. District of Columbia green
dc · 1995
2 sentences

1996See Smith, supra, 631 A.2d at 390 ; Sherman, supra, 653 A.2d at 869 .

1996See Smith, supra, 631 A.2d at 390 ; Sherman, supra, 653 A.2d at 869 .

11996–1996
Ford v. State green
md · 1993
2 sentences

1995Id. 625 A.2d at 999 .

1995Id. 625 A.2d at 999 .

11995–1995
Battle v. United States green
dc · 1986
2 sentences

1995The court will then have to focus directly on the relationship between transferred intent and the statutes construed in Moore and Battle, supra. We decide in this case only that, not having preserved the issue for appeal, appellant has not demonstrated plain error in the giving of the transferred intent instruction. 14 Affirmed. .

1995The court will then have to focus directly on the relationship between transferred intent and the statutes construed in Moore and Battle, supra. We decide in this case only that, not having preserved the issue for appeal, appellant has not demonstrated plain error in the giving of the transferred intent instruction. 14 Affirmed. .

11995–1995
Lewis v. United States green
dc · 1989
1 sentence

1994When counsel for the government first suggested a continuance, as the appropriate remedy, the trial court summarily rejected any such relief. [2] In Lewis , I concurred in the result only. 567 A.2d at 1327 . [3] The government generally includes, when warranted, a BRA violation in its indictment against a defendant.

11994–1994
Bond v. Serano green
dc · 1989
1 sentence

1993On September 17, 1991, the trial court granted Ford’s motion on the authority of Bond, supra, noting that “Bond represents an unwillingness by our Court of Appeals to create judicially an exception to the statute of limitations, where no such exception has been enacted by the legislature.” Relying on O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 , 94 S.Ct. 669, 675 , 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974), the judge also dismissed the owners’ class claims with prejudice.

11993–1993
O'Shea v. Littleton green
scotus · 1974
2 sentences

1993On September 17, 1991, the trial court granted Ford’s motion on the authority of Bond, supra, noting that “Bond represents an unwillingness by our Court of Appeals to create judicially an exception to the statute of limitations, where no such exception has been enacted by the legislature.” Relying on O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 , 94 S.Ct. 669, 675 , 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974), the judge also dismissed the owners’ class claims with prejudice.

1993On September 17, 1991, the trial court granted Ford’s motion on the authority of Bond, supra, noting that “Bond represents an unwillingness by our Court of Appeals to create judicially an exception to the statute of limitations, where no such exception has been enacted by the legislature.” Relying on O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 494 , 94 S.Ct. 669, 675 , 38 L.Ed.2d 674 (1974), the judge also dismissed the owners’ class claims with prejudice.

11993–1993

Where else courts name it

TX 47 (1994–2025) CA 37 (1970–2025) OH 24 (1978–2025) IL 23 (1979–2025) MO 14 (1921–2020) NY 12 (1961–2009) AL 12 (1971–2024) IN 11 (1988–2024) WA 10 (1990–2026) MS 10 (1999–2023) GA 10 (1981–2024) DC 9 (1992–2007) SC 9 (2003–2023) KY 7 (2011–2024) MI 7 (1986–2023) LA 6 (1986–2021) MN 6 (1986–2019) MT 6 (2000–2023) NV 5 (1989–2017) FL 5 (1992–2025) CT 5 (1994–2008) KS 5 (1992–2024) PA 5 (1995–2022) MA 4 (2006–2008) AR 4 (1999–2018) MD 4 (2014–2020) TN 4 (2005–2017) WI 3 (2001–2019) NC 3 (2014–2026) NJ 3 (1981–1999) OK 2 (2012–2017) IA 2 (2018–2019) ME 2 (2006–2016) SD 2 (1999–1999) VA 2 (2012–2013) DE 2 (2020–2025) ID 2 (2000–2011)

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