6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1990–2008 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 |
|---|---|---|
Washington v. Washington Hospital Centergreen2 sentences2008Cf. Washington v. Washington Hospital Center, 579 A.2d 177, 189 (D.C.1990) (“we decline to hold that allegations in pleadings can replace findings of fact for purposes of applying a credit against the verdict intended to substitute for the non-settling defendant’s contribution claim”). 1996"In light of the requirement of our cases that the settling defendants’ liability be judicially established, Lamphier, supra, 524 A.2d at 733 & n. 5, we decline to hold that allegations in pleadings can replace findings of fact for purposes of applying a credit against the verdict intended to substitute for the nonsettling defendant’s contribution claim." Washington, 579 A.2d at 189 (footnote omitted). | 2 | 2 |
Berg v. Footergreen2 sentences2000See Berg, 673 A.2d at 1253 -54 & n. 17 (citing McDermott, 511 U.S. at 211 n. 13, 114 S.Ct. 1461 ). [6] Noting the principle of equity underlying *52 the contribution doctrine, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has explained that [t]he settling party has settled his share of the case for a specified amount. 2000See Berg, 673 A.2d at 1253 -54 & n. 17 (citing McDermott, 511 U.S. at 211 n. 13, 114 S.Ct. 1461 ). 6 Noting the principle of equity un derlying the contribution doctrine, the United States Court of Appeals for the 'District of Columbia Circuit has explained that [t]he settling party has settled his share of the case for a specified amount. | 1 | 2 |
Roehrig v. City of Louisvillegreen1 sentence2002See Roehrig v. City of Louisville, 454 S.W.2d 703, 705 (Ky.1970) and commenting that: (''[F]ailure of notice did not bar a claim of contribution ... because the claim normally would not accrue within the time allowed for giving notice.”) (citation omitted). 14 .D.C.Code § 12-309 (1995) provides, in relevant part: An action may not be maintained against the District of Columbia for unliquidated damages to person or property unless, within six months after the injury or damage was sustained, the claimant, his agent, or attorney has given notice in writing to the Mayor of the District of Columbia | 1 | 1 |
Bair v. Bryantgreen2 sentences2000A contribution claim accrues only upon the "disproportionate discharge of the common obligation by one of the common obligors." Bair v. Bryant, 96 A.2d 508, 510 (D.C.1953). 2000A contribution claim accrues only upon the “disproportionate discharge of the common obligation by one of the common obligors.” Bair v. Bryant, 96 A.2d 508, 510 (D.C.1953). | 1 | 1 |
McDermott, Inc. v. AmClydegreen2 sentences2000See Berg, 673 A.2d at 1253 -54 & n. 17 (citing McDermott, 511 U.S. at 211 n. 13, 114 S.Ct. 1461 ). [6] Noting the principle of equity underlying *52 the contribution doctrine, the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit has explained that [t]he settling party has settled his share of the case for a specified amount. 2000See Berg, 673 A.2d at 1253 -54 & n. 17 (citing McDermott, 511 U.S. at 211 n. 13, 114 S.Ct. 1461 ). 6 Noting the principle of equity un derlying the contribution doctrine, the United States Court of Appeals for the 'District of Columbia Circuit has explained that [t]he settling party has settled his share of the case for a specified amount. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Lamphier v. Washington Hospital Center
green
2 sentences1996"In light of the requirement of our cases that the settling defendants’ liability be judicially established, Lamphier, supra, 524 A.2d at 733 & n. 5, we decline to hold that allegations in pleadings can replace findings of fact for purposes of applying a credit against the verdict intended to substitute for the nonsettling defendant’s contribution claim." Washington, 579 A.2d at 189 (footnote omitted). 1996"In light of the requirement of our cases that the settling defendants’ liability be judicially established, Lamphier, supra, 524 A.2d at 733 & n. 5, we decline to hold that allegations in pleadings can replace findings of fact for purposes of applying a credit against the verdict intended to substitute for the nonsettling defendant’s contribution claim." Washington, 579 A.2d at 189 (footnote omitted). | 3 | 1990–1999 |
Paul v. Bier
green
1 sentence2008We said specifically that “[h]ad Dr. Bier been put on notice of GWU’s intent to claim for contribution, he would have had an incentive to build a case during trial that separated his liability from that of GWU if he knew that joint tortfea- *378 sor liability would be a central feature of his responsibility to GWU.” Id. at 48 (citing Washington v. Washington Hospital Center, 579 A.2d at 188 (plaintiff might have litigated differently had there been a request for pro rata credit)). | 1 | 2008–2008 |
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.