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 1980–2015 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 |
|---|---|---|
Gulf Oil Corp. v. Gilbertred2 sentences2003Mills, 511 A.2d at 10 ; accord, Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09 , 67 S.Ct. 839 . 5 . 2003Mills, 511 A.2d at 10 ; accord, Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09 , 67 S.Ct. 839 . 5 . | 2 | 3 |
Medlantic Long Term Care Corp. v. Smithgreen2 sentences2015The trial court is to “evaluate the contacts with the [relevant] jurisdictions in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Medlantic Long Term Care Corp. v. Smith, 791 A.2d 25, 32 (D.C.2002). “[T]he burden normally [is] allocated to the defendant to demonstrate why dismissal is warranted for forum non conveniens[.]” Eric T. v. National Med. 2015The trial court 7 is to “evaluate the contacts with the [relevant] jurisdictions in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party.” Medlantic Long Term Care Corp. v. Smith, 791 A.2d 25, 32 (D.C. 2002). “[T]he burden normally [is] allocated to the defendant to demonstrate why dismissal is warranted for forum non conveniens[.]” Eric T. v. National Med. | 2 | 2 |
Cresta v. Neurology Center, P.A.green1 sentence2003Although the parties disagreed about whether “the actual malpractice” occurred in the District of Columbia (where the Mobil suit was filed) or in Maryland (where Rolinski worked and allegedly allowed the statute of limitations to run on Lewis’s claims), the judge decided that it was not necessary to resolve that issue for purposes of the forum non conve-niens motion because “a tort need not occur within a particular jurisdiction for that jurisdiction to be connected to the occurrence” (quoting Cresta v. Neurology Center, P.A., 557 A.2d 156, 160 (D.C.1989) (internal quotation marks and citation | 1 | 1 |
Smith v. Alder Branch Realty Ltd. Partnershipgreen1 sentence2003P’ship, 684 A.2d 1284, 1288 (D.C.1996). | 1 | 1 |
Dunkwu v. Nevillegreen1 sentence2003See, e.g., Dunkwu, 575 A.2d at 295-97. | 1 | 1 |
Frost v. PEOPLES DRUG STORE, INCORPORATEDgreen1 sentence2002Id. at 1092 (quoting Frost v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc., 327 A.2d 810, 813 (D.C.1974)). *32 Thus, we turn to consider the public interest factors. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Future View, Inc. v. Criticom, Inc.
green
2 sentences2015The public interest factors include: “(1) the clearance of foreign controversies from congested dockets; (2) the adjudication of disputes in the forum most closely [l]inked thereto; and (3) the avoidance of saddling courts with the burden of construing a foreign jurisdiction’s law.” Nixon Peabody, 791 A.2d at 37 (quoting Future View, 755 A.2d at 433 ). 2015The public interest factors include: “(1) the clearance of foreign controversies from congested dockets; (2) the adjudication of disputes in the forum most closely [l]inked thereto; and (3) the avoidance of saddling courts with the burden of construing a foreign jurisdiction’s law.” Nixon Peabody, 791 A.2d at 37 (quoting Future View, 755 A.2d at 433 ). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Nixon Peabody LLP v. Beaupre
green
2 sentences2015The public interest factors include: “(1) the clearance of foreign controversies from congested dockets; (2) the adjudication of disputes in the forum most closely [l]inked thereto; and (3) the avoidance of saddling courts with the burden of construing a foreign jurisdiction’s law.” Nixon Peabody, 791 A.2d at 37 (quoting Future View, 755 A.2d at 433 ). 2015The public interest factors include: “(1) the clearance of foreign controversies from congested dockets; (2) the adjudication of disputes in the forum most closely [l]inked thereto; and (3) the avoidance of saddling courts with the burden of construing a foreign jurisdiction’s law.” Nixon Peabody, 791 A.2d at 37 (quoting Future View, 755 A.2d at 433 ). | 2 | 2015–2015 |
Mills v. Aetna Fire Underwriters Insurance
green
2 sentences2003Mills, 511 A.2d at 10 ; accord, Gulf Oil, 330 U.S. at 508-09 , 67 S.Ct. 839 . 5 . 2002Coulibaly, 728 A.2d at 601 (quoting Mills, 511 A.2d at 10 ). | 2 | 2002–2003 |
Jenkins v. Smith
green
2 sentences1996Id. at 158 (citing Jenkins, 535 A.2d at 1369-70 ). 1990Jenkins, supra, 535 A.2d at 1369-70 . | 2 | 1990–1996 |
Coulibaly v. Malaquias
green
2 sentences2002Coulibaly, 728 A.2d at 601 (quoting Mills, 511 A.2d at 10 ). 2002Id. at 1092 (quoting Frost v. Peoples Drug Store, Inc., 327 A.2d 810, 813 (D.C.1974)). *32 Thus, we turn to consider the public interest factors. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Pain v. United Technologies Corp.
green
1 sentence1999D.C. at 238, 637 F.2d at 784 . *607 In conclusion, the trial court’s dismissal for forum non conveniens was an abuse of discretion because: 1) it misapplied the Mills burden-shifting rule by failing to conduct a more substantial contacts analysis; 2) it did not take into consideration and properly apply all of the Gulf Oil factors; 3) it took into consideration an improper factor; 4) it relied on facts not supported by the record; and 5) it failed to consider what jurisdiction would provide an appropriate alternative forum. 9 Placing the burden of proof on Malaquias, we conclude that Malaquias | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Kaiser Foundation Health Plan of Mid-Atlantic States, Inc. v. Rose
green
1 sentence1996Id. at 158 (citing Jenkins, 535 A.2d at 1369-70 ). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Gertz v. Robert Welch, Inc.
green
2 sentences1980The Court also observed that such a public interest test overly exposed the press to liability as well as imper-missibly denied any recourse to the private individual whose reputation is injured by defamatory falsehood unless he met the “rigorous requirements of New York Times ....’’ 418 U.S. at 346 , 94 S.Ct. at 3010 . 1980The Court also observed that such a public interest test overly exposed the press to liability as well as imper-missibly denied any recourse to the private individual whose reputation is injured by defamatory falsehood unless he met the “rigorous requirements of New York Times ....’’ 418 U.S. at 346 , 94 S.Ct. at 3010 . | 1 | 1980–1980 |
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.