7 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2012 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 |
|---|---|---|
O'NEIL v. Bergangreen2 sentences1995There is, however, a partial exception to this rule which we have characterized as “the ‘common knowledge’ exception to the expert testimony requirement.” O’Neil v. Bergan, 452 A.2d 337, 342 (D.C. 1982). 1989We acknowledged that, even in the jury trial context, there are exceptions to the expert testimony rule when an attorney’s lack of care and skill “is so obvious that the trier of fact can find negligence as a matter of common knowledge,” id. at 341 , but we found the case at bar “too complex for jury analysis without expert help.” Id. at 342 . | 2 | 3 |
Benn v. United Statesgreen2 sentences2012See Benn II, 978 A.2d at 1275 ("[E]ven if the trial court did not apply an automatic rule of exclusion, the ruling was nonetheless defective because it did not address the correct legal factors set out in Dyas or apply them to the expert testimony that the defense proffered.”); see also id. at 1278 . 2012See Benn II, 978 A.2d at 1275 ("[E]ven if the trial court did not apply an automatic rule of exclusion, the ruling was nonetheless defective because it did not address the correct legal factors set out in Dyas or apply them to the expert testimony that the defense proffered.”); see also id. at 1278 . | 1 | 1 |
District of Columbia v. Hamptongreen1 sentence2001See District of Columbia v. Hampton, 666 A.2d 30, 35 (D.C.1995) (citing O’Neil v. Bergan, 452 A.2d 337, 342 (D.C.1982)). | 1 | 1 |
Abbey v. Jacksongreen2 sentences1985During the period between the disposition of the case at the trial level and argument before this court, we have concluded, in Abbey v. Jackson, 483 A.2d 330 (D.C.1984), that "[a]llowing plaintiffs in the appropriate case to prove a malpractice claim through the expert testimony of defendant physician or defense witnesses is ... consistent with the purposes of the expert testimony requirement....’’ Id. at 334 (emphasis added). 1985During the period between the disposition of the case at the trial level and argument before this court, we have concluded, in Abbey v. Jackson, 483 A.2d 330 (D.C.1984), that "[a]llowing plaintiffs in the appropriate case to prove a malpractice claim through the expert testimony of defendant physician or defense witnesses is ... consistent with the purposes of the expert testimony requirement....’’ Id. at 334 (emphasis added). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Baltimore v. B.F. Goodrich Co.
green
2 sentences1997After discussing exceptions to the expert testimony rule, we nonetheless concluded that because of "the multiple preexisting and concurrent possible causes . . . this case falls within that category of `medically complicated' cases requiring expert testimony." Id. at 1231 . 1997After discussing exceptions to the expert testimony rule, we nonetheless concluded that because of “the multiple preexisting and concurrent possible causes ... this case falls within that category of ‘medically complicated’ cases requiring expert testimony.” Id. at 1231 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Beard v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co.
green
1 sentence1995We summarized that exception in Beard v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co., 587 A.2d 195 (D.C.1991): Where negligent conduct is alleged in a context which is within the realm of common knowledge and everyday experience, the plaintiff is not required to adduce expert testimony either to establish the applicable standard of care or to prove that the defendant failed to adhere to it. | 1 | 1995–1995 |
Crain v. Allison
green
1 sentence1984To meet the expert testimony requirement of Crain, supra, Abbey must establish, through expert testimony, the presence and type of risks associated with abortions. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.