8 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1975–2026 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Grand Jury Proceedingsgreen2 sentences1999See id. at 1157-58 & n. 1 (Mansmann, J., concurring and dissenting). . 1999See id. at 1157-58 & n. 1 (Mansmann, J., concurring and dissenting). [3] We pretermit the issue, not raised by the government on appeal, of whether appellant forfeited this argument by not raising it prior to the finding of guilty. [4] Similarly, the former crime of enticement (D.C.Code § 22-3501(b) (1989)) has been replaced by present D.C.Code § 22-4110 (enticement by a person at least 4 years older than the child). [5] Enacted as part of the Anti-Sexual Abuse Act of 1994, D.C. | 2 | 2 |
In Re World Trade Center Disaster Site Litigationgreen1 sentence2026Disaster Site Litig., 521 F.3d 169, 181 (2d Cir. 2008) 12 Appellants eschew grappling with the distinction between immunity from liability and suit, instead focusing principally on their argument that protecting mandatory reporters of suspected child abuse is comparably important to other “high-order” or substantial public interests that we have held to be effectively unreviewable on appeal in the past. 7 We do not intend in any way to minimize the importance of the Prevention of Child Abuse and Neglect Act or its immunity provision. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
United States v. Olano
green
2 sentences2024In Olano, the Supreme Court endorsed this same distinction between waiver and forfeiture. 507 U.S. at 733 . 2024In Olano, the Supreme Court endorsed this same distinction between waiver and forfeiture. 507 U.S. at 733 . | 2 | 2024–2024 |
State v. Pugliese
green
2 sentences1992The first case, State v. Pugliese, 120 N.H. 728 , 422 A.2d 1319 (1980) involved the issue of whether there was a manifest necessity for the trial court to grant a mistrial over defendant’s objection when the trial court refused defendant’s request to inquire of a deadlocked jury whether it had reached a partial verdict. 1992The first case, State v. Pugliese, 120 N.H. 728 , 422 A.2d 1319 (1980) involved the issue of whether there was a manifest necessity for the trial court to grant a mistrial over defendant’s objection when the trial court refused defendant’s request to inquire of a deadlocked jury whether it had reached a partial verdict. | 1 | 1992–1992 |
Brown v. Felsen
green
2 sentences1991Appellees ignore the key distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion: “Whereas res judicata [claim preclusion] forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously, collateral estoppel [issue preclusion] treats as final only those questions actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit." Brown v. Felsen, supra, 442 U.S. at 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n. 10. 1991Appellees ignore the key distinction between claim preclusion and issue preclusion: “Whereas res judicata [claim preclusion] forecloses all that which might have been litigated previously, collateral estoppel [issue preclusion] treats as final only those questions actually and necessarily decided in a prior suit." Brown v. Felsen, supra, 442 U.S. at 139 n. 10, 99 S.Ct. at 2213 n. 10. | 1 | 1991–1991 |
United States v. Allegheny-Ludlum Steel Corp.
green
2 sentences1975Apparently it never occurred to the circuit court that because the Zoning Act contemplated a different type of hearing, the DCAPA could not change zoning proceedings, as § 1-1501 of the latter act provided that it would “supersede any [prior] law and procedure to the extent of any conflict therewith.” It is true that there are many decisions like United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 406 U.S. 742 , 92 S.Ct. 1941 , 32 L.Ed.2d 453 (1972), construing the federal APA, holding that unless “rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing”, info 1975Apparently it never occurred to the circuit court that because the Zoning Act contemplated a different type of hearing, the DCAPA could not change zoning proceedings, as § 1-1501 of the latter act provided that it would “supersede any [prior] law and procedure to the extent of any conflict therewith.” It is true that there are many decisions like United States v. Allegheny Ludlum Steel Corp., 406 U.S. 742 , 92 S.Ct. 1941 , 32 L.Ed.2d 453 (1972), construing the federal APA, holding that unless “rules are required by statute to be made on the record after opportunity for an agency hearing”, info | 1 | 1975–1975 |
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.