9 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2026 3 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 |
|---|---|---|
Miller v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026See Miller v. United States, 14 A.3d 1094, 1115 (D.C. 2011) (“[T]he law generally does not require the doing of a futile act.”). | 1 | 1 |
Belk, Incorporated v. Meyer Corporation, U.S.green1 sentence2022And Defendants offer no authority for a futility exception.”) (internal citations and quotation marks omitted)). 23 Belk, 679 F.3d at 159 (rejecting argument that failure to submit a Rule 50(b) motion should be excused where judge “did not want to hear any additional argument on the sufficiency of the evidence”). 20 Factor to have interfered) — are unenforceable under Virginia law. 24 These are questions of law, as to which our review is de novo. 25 1. | 1 | 1 |
Thomas M. Gaubert v. Federal Home Loan Bank Boardgreen2 sentences2006Gaubert, supra, 274 U.S.App. 2006D.C. 153, 159, 863 F.2d 59, 65 (D.C.Cir.1988) (citations omitted) (noting that the demand requirement furthers the principle that corporate management is entrusted to its board of directors). 5 Under the futility exception, the demand requirement is excused. | 1 | 1 |
Seefeldt v. Board of Trustees of Universitygreen2 sentences1997Seefeldt v. Board of Trustees, 487 F.Supp. 230 (D.D.C.1979) ("The [exhaustion] doctrine may be applied even though failure to note a timely appeal at the administrative level forecloses both administra-ti[ve] and judicial review of the alleged wrong.”) Id. at 233 (emphasis in original) (citing Kuhn v. National Ass’n of Letter Carriers, Branch 5, 528 F.2d 767 (8th Cir.1976); Olinger v. Partridge, 196 F.2d 986 (9th Cir.1952)). 1997Seefeldt v. Board of Trustees, 487 F.Supp. 230 (D.D.C.1979) ("The [exhaustion] doctrine may be applied even though failure to note a timely appeal at the administrative level forecloses both administra-ti[ve] and judicial review of the alleged wrong.”) Id. at 233 (emphasis in original) (citing Kuhn v. National Ass’n of Letter Carriers, Branch 5, 528 F.2d 767 (8th Cir.1976); Olinger v. Partridge, 196 F.2d 986 (9th Cir.1952)). | 1 | 1 |
Randolph-Sheppard Vendors of America v. Caspar W. Weinberger, National Council of State Agencies for the Blind v. Caspar W. Weinbergergreen2 sentences1989Dano relies on the following passage from Randolph-Sheppard Vendors, supra, to support its entitlement to prevail under the futility exception: “Thus, administrative delay could meet the futility exception only where it appears that agency inaction is in reality a statement by the agency of its unwillingness to consider the issue_” 254 U.S.App.D.C. at 61 , 795 F.2d at 106 (emphasis added). 1989Dano relies on the following passage from Randolph-Sheppard Vendors, supra, to support its entitlement to prevail under the futility exception: “Thus, administrative delay could meet the futility exception only where it appears that agency inaction is in reality a statement by the agency of its unwillingness to consider the issue_” 254 U.S.App.D.C. at 61 , 795 F.2d at 106 (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Anika Cox v. Dr. Andrew Jenkinsgreen1 sentence1989See Cox v. Jenkins, 878 F.2d 414, 419-20 (D.C.Cir.1989); C Street Tenants Association, supra, 552 A.2d at 526 ; cf. Walker v. Southern Ry., 385 U.S. 196, 198 , 87 S.Ct. 365, 366 , 17 L.Ed.2d 294 (1966) (agency’s chronic delay among reasons employee’s legal action under Railway Labor Act not barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies). | 1 | 1 |
APARTMENT & OB ASS'N OF MET. WASH. v. Washingtongreen2 sentences1986See, e.g., Apartment & Office Building Association v. Washington, supra (challenge of statutory authority). 1986See, e.g., Apartment & Office Building Association v. Washington, supra (challenge of statutory authority). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
C Street Tenants Ass'n v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission
green
2 sentences1992“It is well established ... that delay alone will not suffice to trigger the futility exception.” Dano Resource Recovery, Inc. v. District of Columbia, supra, 566 A.2d at 486 ; C Street Tenants Ass’n v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, supra, 552 A.2d at 526 . 1989See Cox v. Jenkins, 878 F.2d 414, 419-20 (D.C.Cir.1989); C Street Tenants Association, supra, 552 A.2d at 526 ; cf. Walker v. Southern Ry., 385 U.S. 196, 198 , 87 S.Ct. 365, 366 , 17 L.Ed.2d 294 (1966) (agency’s chronic delay among reasons employee’s legal action under Railway Labor Act not barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies). | 2 | 1989–1992 |
In Re Melton
green
1 sentence2023In re Melton, 581 A.2d 788 (D.C. 1990), opinion superseded on reh’g, 597 A.2d 892 (D.C. 1991). 2 And although the majority does not explicitly say so, I also take us to agree that a court is allowed to express tentative disagreement about a party’s position without actually “rejecting” it, such that 1 The majority believes that the futility doctrine has no place in our analysis. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
In re Melton
green
1 sentence2023In re Melton, 581 A.2d 788 (D.C. 1990), opinion superseded on reh’g, 597 A.2d 892 (D.C. 1991). 2 And although the majority does not explicitly say so, I also take us to agree that a court is allowed to express tentative disagreement about a party’s position without actually “rejecting” it, such that 1 The majority believes that the futility doctrine has no place in our analysis. | 1 | 2023–2023 |
Newman v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence2010Moreover, “the futility doctrine is ordinarily confined to situations in which the agency lacks the power to address the central issue, such as the scope of its authority or a constitutional claim, or in which there is no reasonable chance that it will do so.” Id. | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Kamen v. Kemper Financial Services, Inc.
green
1 sentence2006Id. at 101-02, 111 S.Ct. 1711 (citing D. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
Olinger v. Partridge, Brigadier Gen
green
1 sentence1997Seefeldt v. Board of Trustees, 487 F.Supp. 230 (D.D.C.1979) ("The [exhaustion] doctrine may be applied even though failure to note a timely appeal at the administrative level forecloses both administra-ti[ve] and judicial review of the alleged wrong.”) Id. at 233 (emphasis in original) (citing Kuhn v. National Ass’n of Letter Carriers, Branch 5, 528 F.2d 767 (8th Cir.1976); Olinger v. Partridge, 196 F.2d 986 (9th Cir.1952)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Edward Kuhn v. National Association of Letter Carriers, Branch 5
green
1 sentence1997Seefeldt v. Board of Trustees, 487 F.Supp. 230 (D.D.C.1979) ("The [exhaustion] doctrine may be applied even though failure to note a timely appeal at the administrative level forecloses both administra-ti[ve] and judicial review of the alleged wrong.”) Id. at 233 (emphasis in original) (citing Kuhn v. National Ass’n of Letter Carriers, Branch 5, 528 F.2d 767 (8th Cir.1976); Olinger v. Partridge, 196 F.2d 986 (9th Cir.1952)). | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Dano Resource Recovery, Inc. v. District of Columbia
green
1 sentence1992“It is well established ... that delay alone will not suffice to trigger the futility exception.” Dano Resource Recovery, Inc. v. District of Columbia, supra, 566 A.2d at 486 ; C Street Tenants Ass’n v. District of Columbia Rental Housing Commission, supra, 552 A.2d at 526 . | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Walker v. Southern Railway Co.
green
2 sentences1989See Cox v. Jenkins, 878 F.2d 414, 419-20 (D.C.Cir.1989); C Street Tenants Association, supra, 552 A.2d at 526 ; cf. Walker v. Southern Ry., 385 U.S. 196, 198 , 87 S.Ct. 365, 366 , 17 L.Ed.2d 294 (1966) (agency’s chronic delay among reasons employee’s legal action under Railway Labor Act not barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies). 1989See Cox v. Jenkins, 878 F.2d 414, 419-20 (D.C.Cir.1989); C Street Tenants Association, supra, 552 A.2d at 526 ; cf. Walker v. Southern Ry., 385 U.S. 196, 198 , 87 S.Ct. 365, 366 , 17 L.Ed.2d 294 (1966) (agency’s chronic delay among reasons employee’s legal action under Railway Labor Act not barred by failure to exhaust administrative remedies). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
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.