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 1964–2021 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 |
|---|---|---|
Grant v. May Department Stores Co.green1 sentence2021We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court. 24 To prevail under that standard, the District, as movant, “must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 25 Although that burden rests on the District, it nonetheless was entitled to summary judgment if it demonstrated that Ms. Davis “fail[ed] to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her claim with respect to which she has the burden of proof.”26 The District argues that Ms. 24 Kolowski v. District of C | 1 | 1 |
Victoria Johnson v. Washington Gas Light Companygreen2 sentences2021We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court. 24 To prevail under that standard, the District, as movant, “must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 25 Although that burden rests on the District, it nonetheless was entitled to summary judgment if it demonstrated that Ms. Davis “fail[ed] to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her claim with respect to which she has the burden of proof.”26 The District argues that Ms. 24 Kolowski v. District of C 2021We review the grant of summary judgment de novo, applying the same standard used by the trial court. 24 To prevail under that standard, the District, as movant, “must demonstrate that there is no genuine issue of material fact and that it is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” 25 Although that burden rests on the District, it nonetheless was entitled to summary judgment if it demonstrated that Ms. Davis “fail[ed] to make a sufficient showing on an essential element of her claim with respect to which she has the burden of proof.”26 The District argues that Ms. 24 Kolowski v. District of C | 1 | 1 |
Hunt v. Blackburngreen1 sentence1981See also Hunt v. Blackburn, supra 128 U.S. at 470-71 , 95 S.Ct. at 127; Russell v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., supra at 458; Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 86 F.R.D. 444, 447 (S.D.Fla.1980); Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, supra at 929; Garfinkle v. Areata National Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688, 689 (S.D.N.Y.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Garfinkle v. Arcata National Corp.green1 sentence1981See also Hunt v. Blackburn, supra 128 U.S. at 470-71 , 95 S.Ct. at 127; Russell v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., supra at 458; Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 86 F.R.D. 444, 447 (S.D.Fla.1980); Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, supra at 929; Garfinkle v. Areata National Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688, 689 (S.D.N.Y.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Panter v. Marshall Field & Co.green1 sentence1981“Where ... a party asserts as an essential element of his defense reliance upon the advice of counsel, . .. the party waives the attorney-client privilege with respect to all communications, whether written or oral, to or from counsel concerning the transactions for which counsel’s advice was sought.” Panter v. Marshall Field & Co., 80 F.R.D. 718, 721 (N.D.Ill.1978). | 1 | 1 |
Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestregreen1 sentence1981See also Hunt v. Blackburn, supra 128 U.S. at 470-71 , 95 S.Ct. at 127; Russell v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., supra at 458; Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 86 F.R.D. 444, 447 (S.D.Fla.1980); Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, supra at 929; Garfinkle v. Areata National Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688, 689 (S.D.N.Y.1974). | 1 | 1 |
Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnsongreen1 sentence1981See also Hunt v. Blackburn, supra 128 U.S. at 470-71 , 95 S.Ct. at 127; Russell v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., supra at 458; Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 86 F.R.D. 444, 447 (S.D.Fla.1980); Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, supra at 929; Garfinkle v. Areata National Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688, 689 (S.D.N.Y.1974). | 1 | 1 |
State v. Ellisongreen1 sentence1981See also Hunt v. Blackburn, supra 128 U.S. at 470-71 , 95 S.Ct. at 127; Russell v. Curtin Matheson Scientific, Inc., supra at 458; Pitney-Bowes, Inc. v. Mestre, 86 F.R.D. 444, 447 (S.D.Fla.1980); Handgards, Inc. v. Johnson & Johnson, supra at 929; Garfinkle v. Areata National Corp., 64 F.R.D. 688, 689 (S.D.N.Y.1974). | 1 | 1 |
United States v. Lavance Greene, United States of America v. Randolph Greenegreen2 sentences1977See United States v. Greene, supra, 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 28 , 489 F.2d at 1152 . 1977See United States v. Greene, supra, 160 U.S.App.D.C. at 28 , 489 F.2d at 1152 . | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Hackney v. United States
green
1 sentence1978As stated by this court in Hackney v. United States, supra at 1341-1342: [Although] the essential elements of the crime charged should be alleged in an indictment, the underlying rationale for this holding was to satisfy the constitutional requirement that a defendant be apprised of what he must be prepared to meet. [Citations omitted.][ 6 ] Indeed, one scholar has suggested that the essential element requirement should be read in light of whether it is fair to the defendant to require him to defend on the basis of the charge stated in the indictment. [Citation omitted.] Hence, although the in | 1 | 1978–1978 |
Zabarah v. Yemen Arab Republic
neutral
1 sentence1965Her argument is based mainly on the case of Zabarah v. Yemen Arab Republic, D.C.App., 198 A.2d 906 (1964), where we decided that an action in ejectment had to be dismissed because the plaintiff was required to prove its title to the property in question as an essential element of its claim. | 1 | 1965–1965 |
Shapiro v. Christopher
green
1 sentence1964Plaintiff relies heavily on Shapiro v. Christopher, 90 U.S.App.D.C. 114 , 195 F.2d 785 ; but the exact holding in that case is that the trial court “has jurisdiction in ejectment cases where the title to real estate is not in issue, and that the plaintiff’s title is not so in issue if it is expressly conceded or not denied.” 90 U.S.App.D.C. 123 , 195 F.2d 794 . | 1 | 1964–1964 |
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.