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 1946–2018 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hensley v. Eckerhartgreen2 sentences2018Hensley , however, actually aids appellee in stating that "[w]here [a party] has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee." Id. at 440 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 . 2018Hensley , however, actually aids appellee in stating that "[w]here [a party] has failed to prevail on a claim that is distinct in all respects from his successful claims, the hours spent on the unsuccessful claim should be excluded in considering the amount of a reasonable fee." Id. at 440 , 103 S.Ct. 1933 . | 1 | 4 |
Neverdon v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence1993See Moore v. United States, 608 A.2d 144, 145 (D.C.1992); Neverdon v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 974, 975 (D.C.1983). 9 . | 1 | 1 |
Moore v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1993See Moore v. United States, 608 A.2d 144, 145 (D.C.1992); Neverdon v. District of Columbia, 468 A.2d 974, 975 (D.C.1983). 9 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Hopkins
green
2 sentences2011To explain this supposed “pernicious effect,” the majority warns that “[i]f the unsuccessful defense of a motion to disqualify were held to constitute sanctionable misconduct, lawyers with meritorious defenses might otherwise withdraw unnecessarily, rather than risk exposure to disciplinary charges.” Id. 2011The majority’s position thus is based on an unlikely supposition that there exist a significant number of timorous trial lawyers who might “withdraw unnecessarily” if faced with mere “exposure to disciplinary charges.” Id. (emphasis added). | 1 | 2011–2011 |
Martin v. United States
green
1 sentence2002In Martin , the court stated that there must be evidence “that the aggressor stood in loco parentis to the child, and ... that reasonable discipline was used under the circumstances.” 452 A.2d at 362 . 11 These characterizations of the parental discipline defense, summary though they are, emphasize not the non-malicious state of mind of the parent, but rather the purpose and the reasonableness of the force used. | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Reigle v. United States
green
1 sentence2002In Reigle , the court merely referred *1242 without elaboration to the defendant’s unsuccessful claim that he was “administering reasonable parental authority and proper correction.” 194 A.2d at 661 . | 1 | 2002–2002 |
Oesby v. United States
green
1 sentence1981Oesby v. United States, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 1 (1977); Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295 (1973), pet. for rehearing denied, 329 A.2d 453 (1974); Bruce v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336 , 379 F.2d 113 (1967). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Angarano v. United States
green
1 sentence1981Oesby v. United States, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 1 (1977); Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295 (1973), pet. for rehearing denied, 329 A.2d 453 (1974); Bruce v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336 , 379 F.2d 113 (1967). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Arthur Bruce v. United States
green
2 sentences1981Oesby v. United States, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 1 (1977); Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295 (1973), pet. for rehearing denied, 329 A.2d 453 (1974); Bruce v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336 , 379 F.2d 113 (1967). 1981Oesby v. United States, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 1 (1977); Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295 (1973), pet. for rehearing denied, 329 A.2d 453 (1974); Bruce v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336 , 379 F.2d 113 (1967). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Angarano v. United States
green
1 sentence1981Oesby v. United States, D.C.App., 398 A.2d 1 (1977); Angarano v. United States, D.C.App., 312 A.2d 295 (1973), pet. for rehearing denied, 329 A.2d 453 (1974); Bruce v. United States, 126 U.S.App.D.C. 336 , 379 F.2d 113 (1967). | 1 | 1981–1981 |
Hicks v. Behrend
neutral
1 sentence1946In a later case, Hicks v. Behrend, D.C.Mun.App., 40 A.2d 78, 81 , a tenant, having gone before the Administrator and made an unsuccessful claim of' a violation of a minimum service standard, later sued for statutory damages. | 1 | 1946–1946 |
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.