8 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1997–2007 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 |
|---|---|---|
Brees v. Kelly Adjustment Co.green2 sentences1997Brees , however, was decided under a previous version of the rule which provided for three additional days where "`a judgment or final order is entered or decided out of the presence of the parties and counsel and without previous notice to them of the court's decision. '" Id. at 215 (emphasis added) (quoting old Rule 4 II(a)(3)). 1997Brees , however, was decided under a previous version of the rule which provided for three additional days where " ‘a judgment or final order is entered or decided out of the presence of the parties and counsel and without previous notice to them of the court's decision.' " Id. at 215 (emphasis added) (quoting old Rule 4 11(a)(3)). | 3 | 3 |
United States v. Alejandro Correagreen1 sentence2007See United States v. Correa, 362 F.3d 1306, 1309 (11th Cir.2004) (holding similarly where the movant had thirty-four months following the amendment in which to file a timely motion); United States v. Ristovski, 312 F.3d 206, 212 (6th Cir.2002) (holding that it was just and practicable to apply the new time limits of Rule 33 to defendant’s motion because he had nineteen months following the rule amendment to file a timely motion). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ljupco Ristovskigreen1 sentence2007See United States v. Correa, 362 F.3d 1306, 1309 (11th Cir.2004) (holding similarly where the movant had thirty-four months following the amendment in which to file a timely motion); United States v. Ristovski, 312 F.3d 206, 212 (6th Cir.2002) (holding that it was just and practicable to apply the new time limits of Rule 33 to defendant’s motion because he had nineteen months following the rule amendment to file a timely motion). | 1 | 1 |
Kontrick v. Ryangreen2 sentences2006See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 124 S.Ct. 906 , 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004). 7 . 2006See Kontrick v. Ryan, 540 U.S. 443, 454-55 , 124 S.Ct. 906 , 157 L.Ed.2d 867 (2004). 7 . | 1 | 1 |
Haynes v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence2006Most obvious in this regard is the current version of the rule, which by its terms states that only payments made with estate funds or from the Guardianship Fund require advance court approval. 8 While the prior *826 version lacked that express provision, it too cannot support the challenged rulings, for “the Superior Court may not adopt a rule which abridges any substantive right.” Haynes v. District of Columbia, 503 A.2d 1219, 1223 (D.C.1986) (per curiam). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arrington v. United States
green
1 sentence2007On appeal, the government conceded that the old version of the rule should apply and we "conclude[dj for purposes of [that] case that Arrington’s motion was timely,” adding that “[i]t is, at least, questionable, whether the new rule may be applied retroactively to render untimely a motion which would have been timely under the old rule.” 804 A.2d at 1075 . | 1 | 2007–2007 |
Nelson v. McCreary
green
2 sentences2006Because I conclude that the version of the rule formulated by the majority does not dispel the prejudice of suggesting that Dr. Jacobson was negligent in not “changing” or “conforming” his conduct, and that the instructions “as a whole, fairly and accurately state[d] the applicable law,” Nelson, supra, 694 A.2d at 901 , I cannot conclude that Judge Wright erred. 2006Because I conclude that the version of the rule formulated by the majority does not dispel the prejudice of suggesting that Dr. Jacobson was negligent in not “changing” or “conforming” his conduct, and that the instructions “as a whole, fairly and accurately state[d] the applicable law,” Nelson, supra, 694 A.2d at 901 , I cannot conclude that Judge Wright erred. | 1 | 2006–2006 |
United States v. Walter Swiderski and Maritza De Los Santos
green
1 sentence1999The trial evidence in Swiderski contained testimony that defendant's fiancee had stated that the cocaine at issue was not good enough for their personal use and that they had identified a buyer. 548 F.2d at 448 . | 1 | 1999–1999 |
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.
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.