balance factors (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

balance factors in District of Columbia

6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1957–2002 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.

Followed or applied (2)

CaseFollowedCited
Neale v. Arshadgreen
dc · 1996 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2002–2002
2 sentences

2002“Unless the balance of factors is strongly in favor of the defendant, the plaintiffs choice of forum should rarely be disturbed.” Id. at 162-63 (internal quotation and citations omitted).

2002Stated another way, “a defendant who invokes the doctrine of forum non conveniens bears the burden of establishing a case for dismissal.” Id. at 163 (citation omitted).

11
Stern Equipment Company v. Poguegreen
dc · 1955 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1996–1996
1 sentence

1996See Stem Equipment Co. v. Po-gue, 117 A.2d 447, 448 (D.C.1955) (citations omitted).

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (5)

CaseCitedYears
District of Columbia v. Walker green
dc · 1997
2 sentences

2001While the need to apprehend the driver was more urgent in this case than in Walker; 6 it is only one factor to be balanced against others, including the hazards of the chase to people on the street. “[T]he appropriate inquiry is whether, given the balance of the factors in th[e] case, a reasonable juror could conclude that the conduct of the [police] officers so grossly deviated from the conduct required under the circumstances as to support a finding of wanton, willful and reckless disregard or conscious indifference for the rights and safety of others.” 689 A.2d at 46 .

2001Henderson, supra, 710 A.2d at 876 (citing Walker, supra, 689 A.2d at 46 ).

31998–2001
District of Columbia v. Henderson green
dc · 1998
2 sentences

2001Henderson, supra, 710 A.2d at 876 (citing Walker, supra, 689 A.2d at 46 ).

2001Henderson, supra, 710 A.2d at 876 (citing Walker, supra, 689 A.2d at 46 ).

12001–2001
Dearden v. Hey green
mass · 1939
2 sentences

1957In support of this argument Bell cites Moultroup v. Gorham, 113 Vt. 317 , 34 A.2d 96 ; Dearden v. Hey, 304 Mass. 659 , 24 N.E.2d 644 , 127 A.L.R. 1077 ; Saber v. Supplee-Wills-Jones Milk Co., 181 Pa.Super. 167 , 124 A.2d 620 .

1957In support of this argument Bell cites Moultroup v. Gorham, 113 Vt. 317 , 34 A.2d 96 ; Dearden v. Hey, 304 Mass. 659 , 24 N.E.2d 644 , 127 A.L.R. 1077 ; Saber v. Supplee-Wills-Jones Milk Co., 181 Pa.Super. 167 , 124 A.2d 620 .

11957–1957
Saber v. Supplee-Wills-Jones Milk Co. green
pasuperct · 1956
2 sentences

1957In support of this argument Bell cites Moultroup v. Gorham, 113 Vt. 317 , 34 A.2d 96 ; Dearden v. Hey, 304 Mass. 659 , 24 N.E.2d 644 , 127 A.L.R. 1077 ; Saber v. Supplee-Wills-Jones Milk Co., 181 Pa.Super. 167 , 124 A.2d 620 .

1957In support of this argument Bell cites Moultroup v. Gorham, 113 Vt. 317 , 34 A.2d 96 ; Dearden v. Hey, 304 Mass. 659 , 24 N.E.2d 644 , 127 A.L.R. 1077 ; Saber v. Supplee-Wills-Jones Milk Co., 181 Pa.Super. 167 , 124 A.2d 620 .

11957–1957
Moultroup v. Gorham green
vt · 1943
2 sentences

1957In support of this argument Bell cites Moultroup v. Gorham, 113 Vt. 317 , 34 A.2d 96 ; Dearden v. Hey, 304 Mass. 659 , 24 N.E.2d 644 , 127 A.L.R. 1077 ; Saber v. Supplee-Wills-Jones Milk Co., 181 Pa.Super. 167 , 124 A.2d 620 .

1957In support of this argument Bell cites Moultroup v. Gorham, 113 Vt. 317 , 34 A.2d 96 ; Dearden v. Hey, 304 Mass. 659 , 24 N.E.2d 644 , 127 A.L.R. 1077 ; Saber v. Supplee-Wills-Jones Milk Co., 181 Pa.Super. 167 , 124 A.2d 620 .

11957–1957

Where else courts name it

IL 129 (1914–2026) TX 60 (1941–2025) NY 47 (1867–2026) PA 41 (1890–2023) CA 34 (1919–2025) MI 22 (1908–2023) NJ 22 (1886–2025) TN 19 (1969–2025) LA 18 (1920–2024) OH 15 (1894–2025) OR 13 (1911–2026) CT 13 (1887–2024) MD 11 (1987–2019) WA 10 (1916–2024) MA 8 (1931–2012) MO 8 (1897–2022) IN 7 (1936–2019) AL 7 (1876–2011) IA 7 (1860–2015) FL 7 (1984–2003) VT 6 (2013–2024) DC 6 (1957–2002) AK 6 (1979–2025) NM 6 (2007–2024) AZ 5 (1918–2019) MT 5 (1935–1999) KY 5 (1900–2015) NC 5 (1913–2026) RI 5 (2003–2004) WI 4 (1902–2021) ND 4 (1946–2000) GA 4 (1923–2025) WY 4 (1937–2003) DE 4 (2016–2025) NE 3 (1934–1975) KS 3 (1999–2021) MS 3 (1927–2007) CO 3 (1960–2016) ME 3 (1961–2025) AR 3 (1930–2025) WV 3 (1993–2021) SC 3 (1979–1987) VA 2 (1925–1978) OK 2 (1922–1929) SD 2 (1926–1983) HI 2 (1910–2017) UT 2 (1938–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check