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.
8 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 2024–2026 8 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 |
|---|---|---|
Crater v. Olivergreen2 sentences2025“In reviewing for abuse of discretion, 2 As required by this court’s 2002 ruling on direct appeal, the trial court also vacated the merged second-degree murder conviction for which Mr. Doe had received a twenty-year sentence, thereby reducing Mr. Doe’s aggregate prison term from seventy-five years to fifty-five years to life. 3 The government asserted in its brief that Mr. Doe would be eligible for home release on December 28, 2024 and that his new projected release date is June 28, 2025. 6 we ‘must determine whether the decision maker failed to consider a relevant factor, whether [the decisio 2025In conducting that review, we ask whether the court “failed to consider a relevant factor,” “relied upon an improper factor,” and “whether the reasons given reasonably support the conclusion.” Id. (quoting Crater, 201 A.3d at 584 ). | 4 | 5 |
Reynard Eaglin v. District of Columbiagreen2 sentences2025Discussion A. Standard of Review This court “review[s] the denial of an IRAA motion for abuse of discretion, but consider[s] questions of statutory construction de novo.” Bishop v. United States, 310 A.3d 629 , 641 (D.C. 2024) (citation omitted) (first citing Williams v. United States, 205 A.3d 837 , 848 (D.C. 2019); and then citing Eaglin v. District of Columbia, 123 A.3d 953, 955 (D.C. 2015)). 2025Discussion A. Standard of Review This court “review[s] the denial of an IRAA motion for abuse of discretion, but consider[s] questions of statutory construction de novo.” Bishop v. United States, 310 A.3d 629 , 641 (D.C. 2024) (citation omitted) (first citing Williams v. United States, 205 A.3d 837 , 848 (D.C. 2019); and then citing Eaglin v. District of Columbia, 123 A.3d 953, 955 (D.C. 2015)). | 3 | 3 |
Koon v. United Statesred2 sentences2025“In reviewing for abuse of discretion, 2 As required by this court’s 2002 ruling on direct appeal, the trial court also vacated the merged second-degree murder conviction for which Mr. Doe had received a twenty-year sentence, thereby reducing Mr. Doe’s aggregate prison term from seventy-five years to fifty-five years to life. 3 The government asserted in its brief that Mr. Doe would be eligible for home release on December 28, 2024 and that his new projected release date is June 28, 2025. 6 we ‘must determine whether the decision maker failed to consider a relevant factor, whether [the decisio 2025“In reviewing for abuse of discretion, 2 As required by this court’s 2002 ruling on direct appeal, the trial court also vacated the merged second-degree murder conviction for which Mr. Doe had received a twenty-year sentence, thereby reducing Mr. Doe’s aggregate prison term from seventy-five years to fifty-five years to life. 3 The government asserted in its brief that Mr. Doe would be eligible for home release on December 28, 2024 and that his new projected release date is June 28, 2025. 6 we ‘must determine whether the decision maker failed to consider a relevant factor, whether [the decisio | 2 | 2 |
Wheeler v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2026See Riley, 338 A.3d at 10; see also Wheeler v. United States, 930 A.2d 232, 246 (D.C. 2007) (holding that government has the burden of persuasion in harmless error analysis). | 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 Ronald B. Bergman
green
2 sentences2025Discussion A. Standard of Review This court “review[s] the denial of an IRAA motion for abuse of discretion, but consider[s] questions of statutory construction de novo.” Bishop v. United States, 310 A.3d 629 , 641 (D.C. 2024) (citation omitted) (first citing Williams v. United States, 205 A.3d 837 , 848 (D.C. 2019); and then citing Eaglin v. District of Columbia, 123 A.3d 953, 955 (D.C. 2015)). 2025Discussion A. Standard of Review This court “review[s] the denial of an IRAA motion for abuse of discretion, but consider[s] questions of statutory construction de novo.” Bishop v. United States, 310 A.3d 629 , 641 (D.C. 2024) (citation omitted) (first citing Williams v. United States, 205 A.3d 837 , 848 (D.C. 2019); and then citing Eaglin v. District of Columbia, 123 A.3d 953, 955 (D.C. 2015)). | 3 | 2024–2025 |
Mathis v. District of Columbia Housing Authority
green
1 sentence2025Auth., 124 A.3d 1089 , 1101- 03 (D.C. 2015). 15 enumerated IRAA factors when assessing dangerousness and the interests of justice,” we held that it erred by further relying upon both “a completely separate statute” as well as “the seriousness of [the movant’s] crimes as a standalone factor” when deciding to only grant partial relief. | 1 | 2025–2025 |
DeVeau v. United States
green
1 sentence2024The question for the trial court when considering release, similar to the baseline IRAA inquiry, was whether the patient “will or will not, in the reasonable future, be dangerous.” Id. at 311 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In Re CT
green
1 sentence2024“Absent any indication to the contrary, we presume that the trial judge knew the proper standard 12 of proof to apply and did in fact apply it.” In re C.T., 724 A.2d 590 , 597 (D.C. 1999). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.