6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1979–2024 2 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 |
|---|---|---|
George C. Desmond v. United States of America, (Two Cases)green2 sentences1990Desmond v. United States, 333 F.2d 378, 381 (1st Cir.1964) (discussing prejudice to government caused by delay in filing claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ). 16 On the other hand, § 23-110(b) states that “[a] motion for such relief may be made at any time.” See also Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 420 , 79 S.Ct. 451, 454 , 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959) (concurring opinion) (stating that the identical language in § 2255 “simply means that, as in habeas corpus, there is no statute of limitations, no res judicata, and that the doctrine of lach-es is inapplicable”); McKinney v. United States, 93 U.S.App. 1990As this court recently stated in Ramsey v. United States, 569 A.2d 142, 148 , (D.C.1990), quoting Desmond v. United States, 333 F.2d 378, 381 (1st Cir.1964), "it will'not do for a prisoner to wait [to file a collateral claim] until government witnesses have become unavailable, as by death, serious illness or absence from the country, or until the memory of available government witnesses has faded.” We held in Ramsey that such delay will not justify the denial of a motion pursuant to § 23-110 without an eviden-tiary hearing; in the present case, however, Judge Moore held an evidentiary hearing, | 2 | 2 |
Comford v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2021But the government would not have borne the burden of showing harmlessness in this case even if appellants were making a Fleming claim of instructional error in their direct 23 See Comford v. United States, 947 A.2d 1181, 1188 (D.C. 2008) (Court of Appeals does not “do counsel’s work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones.”) (quoting United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (citations omitted)). 13 appeals — had they done so, the claim would be subject to the strictures of plain error review on account of appellants’ failure to raise it at trial. | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Ilario M.A. Zanninogreen1 sentence2021But the government would not have borne the burden of showing harmlessness in this case even if appellants were making a Fleming claim of instructional error in their direct 23 See Comford v. United States, 947 A.2d 1181, 1188 (D.C. 2008) (Court of Appeals does not “do counsel’s work, create the ossature for the argument, and put flesh on its bones.”) (quoting United States v. Zannino, 895 F.2d 1, 17 (1st Cir. 1990) (citations omitted)). 13 appeals — had they done so, the claim would be subject to the strictures of plain error review on account of appellants’ failure to raise it at trial. | 1 | 1 |
George v. Humphrey, Secretary of Treasurygreen1 sentence1990Desmond v. United States, 333 F.2d 378, 381 (1st Cir.1964) (discussing prejudice to government caused by delay in filing claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ). 16 On the other hand, § 23-110(b) states that “[a] motion for such relief may be made at any time.” See also Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 420 , 79 S.Ct. 451, 454 , 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959) (concurring opinion) (stating that the identical language in § 2255 “simply means that, as in habeas corpus, there is no statute of limitations, no res judicata, and that the doctrine of lach-es is inapplicable”); McKinney v. United States, 93 U.S.App. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Commonwealth v. Hinds
green
2 sentences2024The Court also drew from a state, rather than federal, case, Commonwealth v. Hinds, 101 Mass. 209 (1869), for the proposition that “if the facts alleged and admitted do not constitute a crime against the laws of the Commonwealth, the defendant is entitled to be discharged.” Class, 583 U.S. at 180 (quoting Hinds, 101 Mass. at 210 ). 2024The Court also drew from a state, rather than federal, case, Commonwealth v. Hinds, 101 Mass. 209 (1869), for the proposition that “if the facts alleged and admitted do not constitute a crime against the laws of the Commonwealth, the defendant is entitled to be discharged.” Class, 583 U.S. at 180 (quoting Hinds, 101 Mass. at 210 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Class v. United States
green
1 sentence2024The Court also drew from a state, rather than federal, case, Commonwealth v. Hinds, 101 Mass. 209 (1869), for the proposition that “if the facts alleged and admitted do not constitute a crime against the laws of the Commonwealth, the defendant is entitled to be discharged.” Class, 583 U.S. at 180 (quoting Hinds, 101 Mass. at 210 ). | 1 | 2024–2024 |
Blackledge v. Perry
green
1 sentence2024This reasoning sweeps beyond the narrow circumstances of a federal appellant on direct appeal; indeed, as Mr. Ward points out, the Court viewed Class as refining a doctrine rooted partly in Blackledge v. Perry, 417 U.S. 21 (1974), a case that itself concerned a collateral challenge. | 1 | 2024–2024 |
In re Kirchner
green
2 sentences2019Id. , 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 876 , 393 P.3d at 371 . 2019Id. , 216 Cal.Rptr.3d 876 , 393 P.3d at 371 . | 1 | 2019–2019 |
McKinney v. United States
green
1 sentence1990Desmond v. United States, 333 F.2d 378, 381 (1st Cir.1964) (discussing prejudice to government caused by delay in filing claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ). 16 On the other hand, § 23-110(b) states that “[a] motion for such relief may be made at any time.” See also Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 420 , 79 S.Ct. 451, 454 , 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959) (concurring opinion) (stating that the identical language in § 2255 “simply means that, as in habeas corpus, there is no statute of limitations, no res judicata, and that the doctrine of lach-es is inapplicable”); McKinney v. United States, 93 U.S.App. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Heflin v. United States
green
2 sentences1990Desmond v. United States, 333 F.2d 378, 381 (1st Cir.1964) (discussing prejudice to government caused by delay in filing claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ). 16 On the other hand, § 23-110(b) states that “[a] motion for such relief may be made at any time.” See also Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 420 , 79 S.Ct. 451, 454 , 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959) (concurring opinion) (stating that the identical language in § 2255 “simply means that, as in habeas corpus, there is no statute of limitations, no res judicata, and that the doctrine of lach-es is inapplicable”); McKinney v. United States, 93 U.S.App. 1990Desmond v. United States, 333 F.2d 378, 381 (1st Cir.1964) (discussing prejudice to government caused by delay in filing claim under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 ). 16 On the other hand, § 23-110(b) states that “[a] motion for such relief may be made at any time.” See also Heflin v. United States, 358 U.S. 415, 420 , 79 S.Ct. 451, 454 , 3 L.Ed.2d 407 (1959) (concurring opinion) (stating that the identical language in § 2255 “simply means that, as in habeas corpus, there is no statute of limitations, no res judicata, and that the doctrine of lach-es is inapplicable”); McKinney v. United States, 93 U.S.App. | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Ramsey v. United States
green
1 sentence1990As this court recently stated in Ramsey v. United States, 569 A.2d 142, 148 , (D.C.1990), quoting Desmond v. United States, 333 F.2d 378, 381 (1st Cir.1964), "it will'not do for a prisoner to wait [to file a collateral claim] until government witnesses have become unavailable, as by death, serious illness or absence from the country, or until the memory of available government witnesses has faded.” We held in Ramsey that such delay will not justify the denial of a motion pursuant to § 23-110 without an eviden-tiary hearing; in the present case, however, Judge Moore held an evidentiary hearing, | 1 | 1990–1990 |
United States v. Charles H. Carter
green
1 sentence1979Appellant’s reliance on United States v. Carter, supra, is misplaced. | 1 | 1979–1979 |
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.