6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1948–2013 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grant v. American National Red Crossgreen1 sentence2013Finally, appellant also argues that “the trial court erred in not allowing Dr. Mezey to testify about the loss of a chance occasioned by the delay in transporting Mrs. Perkins to a transplant center.” The “loss of chance of survival” doctrine is applicable in medical malpractice cases such as this that “involvfe] negligent treatment of a potentially fatal condition ... where ... the harm [alleged] appears to have been brought about by two or more concurrent causes.” Grant v. American Nat’l Red *347 Cross, 745 A.2d 316, 322 (D.C.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted and second alteration in o | 1 | 1 |
Psychiatric Institute of Washington v. Allengreen1 sentence2013It is an elementary principle that the “law does not require the expert to testify that he or she is personally certain that the plaintiff would not have sustained the injuries [or would have received a liver transplant] but for the defendant’s negligence.” Psychiatric Inst, of Washington v. Allen, 509 A.2d 619, 624 (D.C.1986). | 1 | 1 |
Ferrell v. Rosenbaumgreen1 sentence2013Finally, appellant also argues that “the trial court erred in not allowing Dr. Mezey to testify about the loss of a chance occasioned by the delay in transporting Mrs. Perkins to a transplant center.” The “loss of chance of survival” doctrine is applicable in medical malpractice cases such as this that “involvfe] negligent treatment of a potentially fatal condition ... where ... the harm [alleged] appears to have been brought about by two or more concurrent causes.” Grant v. American Nat’l Red *347 Cross, 745 A.2d 316, 322 (D.C.2000) (internal quotation marks omitted and second alteration in o | 1 | 1 |
Ploufe v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence1985In Ploufe , we reiterated the elementary principle of administrative law that, in order to start the running of time for appeal, the agency is “[obliged to] give notice which was reasonably calculated to apprise petitioner of the decision of the claims deputy and an opportunity to contest that decision through an administrative appeal.” Ploufe, supra, at 465 (citations omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Anderson v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence1963In Anderson v. District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 48 A.2d 710, 712 (1946), we said: “It is an elementary principle of the law of evidefice that the best evidence of which the case from its nature is susceptible must be produced, and that no evidence will be received from a party which is not the best evidence he can produce. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Consumer Product Safety Commission v. GTE Sylvania, Inc.
green
2 sentences1998Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 , 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056 , 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980)); moreover, “It is an elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if possible, to every word, clause and sentence of a statute.” 2A Norman J. 1998Safety Comm’n v. GTE Sylvania, Inc., 447 U.S. 102, 108 , 100 S.Ct. 2051, 2056 , 64 L.Ed.2d 766 (1980)); moreover, “It is an elementary rule of construction that effect must be given, if possible, to every word, clause and sentence of a statute.” 2A Norman J. | 1 | 1998–1998 |
Milanovich v. United States
green
2 sentences1991“And this is so for the commonsensical, if not obvious, reason that a man who takes property does not at the same time give himself the property he has taken.” Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551, 558 , 81 S.Ct. 728, 732 , 5 L.Ed.2d 773 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). 1991“And this is so for the commonsensical, if not obvious, reason that a man who takes property does not at the same time give himself the property he has taken.” Milanovich v. United States, 365 U.S. 551, 558 , 81 S.Ct. 728, 732 , 5 L.Ed.2d 773 (1961) (Frankfurter, J., dissenting). | 1 | 1991–1991 |
Twachtman v. Connelly
green
1 sentence1948Twachtman v. Connelly, 6 Cir., 106 F.2d 501 . | 1 | 1948–1948 |
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.