6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1984–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Arnold v. District of Columbiagreen1 sentence2010Whether a court acquires subject-matter jurisdiction over a case depends on the facts relevant to such jurisdiction as of the time the court’s jurisdiction is invoked, e.g., the date on which a suit is filed. 20 Am.Jur. 2d Courts § 98 (2005); see also Arnold v. District of Columbia, 211 F.Supp.2d 144, 146 (D.D.C.2002) (citing Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 392 n. 12 (3d Cir.1991) (“It is a firmly established rule that subject matter jurisdiction is tested as of the time of the filing of the complaint.”)); In re D.H., 666 A.2d 462 , 478 n. 26 (D.C.1995) (recognizing that relevan | 1 | 1 |
Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corporationgreen1 sentence2010Whether a court acquires subject-matter jurisdiction over a case depends on the facts relevant to such jurisdiction as of the time the court’s jurisdiction is invoked, e.g., the date on which a suit is filed. 20 Am.Jur. 2d Courts § 98 (2005); see also Arnold v. District of Columbia, 211 F.Supp.2d 144, 146 (D.D.C.2002) (citing Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 392 n. 12 (3d Cir.1991) (“It is a firmly established rule that subject matter jurisdiction is tested as of the time of the filing of the complaint.”)); In re D.H., 666 A.2d 462 , 478 n. 26 (D.C.1995) (recognizing that relevan | 1 | 1 |
King v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence2001DOES, 742 A.2d 460, 466 (D.C.1999) (citation omitted). | 1 | 1 |
Alderman v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1996See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 , 89 S.Ct. 961, 966-967 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Belton v. United States, 647 A.2d 66, 70 (D.C.1994), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1383 , 131 L.Ed.2d 236 (1995). 1996See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 , 89 S.Ct. 961, 966-967 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Belton v. United States, 647 A.2d 66, 70 (D.C.1994), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1383 , 131 L.Ed.2d 236 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Belton v. United Statesgreen1 sentence1996See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 , 89 S.Ct. 961, 966-967 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Belton v. United States, 647 A.2d 66, 70 (D.C.1994), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1383 , 131 L.Ed.2d 236 (1995). | 1 | 1 |
Horlick v. Wrightgreen1 sentence1984While correctly reciting the firmly established principle of contract law that prevention by one party excuses performance by the other, Horlick v. Wright, 104 A.2d 825, 827 (D.C.1954), appellants fail to demonstrate how the alleged existence of housing code violations prevented them from providing Woodner with access to the apartments. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re DH
green
1 sentence2010Whether a court acquires subject-matter jurisdiction over a case depends on the facts relevant to such jurisdiction as of the time the court’s jurisdiction is invoked, e.g., the date on which a suit is filed. 20 Am.Jur. 2d Courts § 98 (2005); see also Arnold v. District of Columbia, 211 F.Supp.2d 144, 146 (D.D.C.2002) (citing Rosa v. Resolution Trust Corp., 938 F.2d 383 , 392 n. 12 (3d Cir.1991) (“It is a firmly established rule that subject matter jurisdiction is tested as of the time of the filing of the complaint.”)); In re D.H., 666 A.2d 462 , 478 n. 26 (D.C.1995) (recognizing that relevan | 1 | 2010–2010 |
Capitol Hill Hospital v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
green
1 sentence2000Given the firmly established principle that the Workers’ Compensation Act “should be construed liberally in favor of the employee,” Capitol Hill Hospital, 726 A.2d at 686 , we conclude that this was “manifest error” within the meaning of Oubre, 630 A.2d at 703 , and that at least with respect to the knee, 7 Ms. Walden is entitled to reconsideration of that ruling, res judicata notwithstanding. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Oubre v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
green
1 sentence2000Given the firmly established principle that the Workers’ Compensation Act “should be construed liberally in favor of the employee,” Capitol Hill Hospital, 726 A.2d at 686 , we conclude that this was “manifest error” within the meaning of Oubre, 630 A.2d at 703 , and that at least with respect to the knee, 7 Ms. Walden is entitled to reconsideration of that ruling, res judicata notwithstanding. | 1 | 2000–2000 |
Hairston v. United States
green
1 sentence1996See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 , 89 S.Ct. 961, 966-967 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Belton v. United States, 647 A.2d 66, 70 (D.C.1994), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1383 , 131 L.Ed.2d 236 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
Baker v. United States
green
1 sentence1996See Alderman v. United States, 394 U.S. 165, 174 , 89 S.Ct. 961, 966-967 , 22 L.Ed.2d 176 (1969); Belton v. United States, 647 A.2d 66, 70 (D.C.1994), ce rt. denied, - U.S. -, 115 S.Ct. 1383 , 131 L.Ed.2d 236 (1995). | 1 | 1996–1996 |
United States v. Johnnie Masthers
green
1 sentence1988It noted that “[t]here were indications from the very outset that [the defendant] was mentally deficient.” Id. at 244, 539 F.2d at 723 . | 1 | 1988–1988 |
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.