Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1958–2023 1 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 |
|---|---|---|
Jamel Evans v. United Statesgreen1 sentence2023See generally Evans v. United States, 122 A.3d 876, 887 (D.C. 2015) (“We cannot affirm a criminal conviction on the basis of a theory not presented to the jury.”) (brackets, ellipses, and internal quotation marks omitted). 17 Third, the jury in this case was instructed that, for the purpose of determining whether Mr. Smith “injured” the complainants, “[i]njury means any physical injury, however small, including a touching offensive to a person of reasonable sensibility.” Mr. Smith acknowledges the correctness of that principle. | 1 | 1 |
Howard University v. Cassellgreen1 sentence1996D.C. 75, 81, 126 F.2d 6, 12 (1941) where dismissal of a complaint was held warranted because of limitations, in part because "the [defendant] never acknowledged the correctness of the claim or that it owed anything or that it would pay anything.” In that connection, Cunningham argued: Unlike Howard, in the present action there was no indication that Ernst & Young would not pay the entire balance owed Cunningham & Associates prior to September of 1991. | 1 | 1 |
Lacy v. District of Columbiagreen2 sentences1983See ante at 1318; Morgan, supra, 449 A.2d at 1110-11 ; Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317, 319-21 (D.C.1980). 1983See ante at 1318; Morgan, supra, 449 A.2d at 1110-11 ; Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317, 319-21 (D.C.1980). | 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 |
|---|---|---|
California v. Hodari D.
green
2 sentences1991I also agree that the Supreme Court's recent decision in California v. Hodari D., ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1547 , 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), may cast further doubt upon the correctness of the standard in Smith . 1991I also agree that the Supreme Court's recent decision in California v. Hodari D., ___ U.S. ___, 111 S.Ct. 1547 , 113 L.Ed.2d 690 (1991), may cast further doubt upon the correctness of the standard in Smith . | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Lockhart v. Nelson
green
2 sentences1989The sole en banc issue was the correctness of the hearing division instruction to enter a judgment of acquittal rather than remand for a new trial. 1 After oral argument before the en banc court, and while the case was pending decision, the Supreme Court decided Lockhart v. Nelson, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). 1989The sole en banc issue was the correctness of the hearing division instruction to enter a judgment of acquittal rather than remand for a new trial. 1 After oral argument before the en banc court, and while the case was pending decision, the Supreme Court decided Lockhart v. Nelson, — U.S.-, 109 S.Ct. 285 , 102 L.Ed.2d 265 (1988). | 1 | 1989–1989 |
Morgan v. District of Columbia
green
2 sentences1983See ante at 1318; Morgan, supra, 449 A.2d at 1110-11 ; Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317, 319-21 (D.C.1980). 1983See ante at 1318; Morgan, supra, 449 A.2d at 1110-11 ; Lacy v. District of Columbia, 424 A.2d 317, 319-21 (D.C.1980). | 1 | 1983–1983 |
Melvin v. Melvin
green
2 sentences1958The only expression of doubt concerning the rule, which we have found, is contained in Melvin v. Melvin, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 58 , 129 F.2d 39, 41 , where it was said: “Whether or not Underwood v. Underwood was right in holding that acts which are not a cause for a limited divorce cannot justify desertion, they may justify either a denial or an abatement of maintenance.” It will be noted that the expression of doubt was as to the correctness of the rule and not as to its existence. 1958The only expression of doubt concerning the rule, which we have found, is contained in Melvin v. Melvin, 76 U.S.App.D.C. 56, 58 , 129 F.2d 39, 41 , where it was said: “Whether or not Underwood v. Underwood was right in holding that acts which are not a cause for a limited divorce cannot justify desertion, they may justify either a denial or an abatement of maintenance.” It will be noted that the expression of doubt was as to the correctness of the rule and not as to its existence. | 1 | 1958–1958 |
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.