6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1971–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Prophet v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1999This court has stated, "a visitor in another's home bears the burden of showing that [he] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that home." Rose v. United States, 629 A.2d 526, 531 (D.C.1993) (citing Prophet v. United States, 602 A.2d 1087, 1091 (D.C.1992)). 1999This court has stated, “a visitor' in another’s home bears the burden of showing that [he] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that home.” Rose v. United States, 629 A.2d 526, 531 (D.C.1993) (citing Prophet v. United States, 602 A.2d 1087, 1091 (D.C.1992)). | 1 | 1 |
Rose v. United Statesgreen2 sentences1999This court has stated, "a visitor in another's home bears the burden of showing that [he] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that home." Rose v. United States, 629 A.2d 526, 531 (D.C.1993) (citing Prophet v. United States, 602 A.2d 1087, 1091 (D.C.1992)). 1999This court has stated, “a visitor' in another’s home bears the burden of showing that [he] had a reasonable expectation of privacy in that home.” Rose v. United States, 629 A.2d 526, 531 (D.C.1993) (citing Prophet v. United States, 602 A.2d 1087, 1091 (D.C.1992)). | 1 | 1 |
McIntosh v. Washingtongreen1 sentence1980Although the parties here have identified emergency legislation in effect at the time the case was argued, we do not have before us any indication of more recent actions taken by the Council. [8] McIntosh v. Washington, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 744, 753 (1978) quoting D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1-121(a). [9] See, e. g., Kennedy v. City of Newark, 29 N.J. 178, 186-87 , 148 A.2d 473, 477-78 (1959), where the New Jersey Supreme Court liberally construed powers given municipalities under a home rule act, favoring local action. | 1 | 1 |
Kennedy v. City of Newarkgreen2 sentences1980Although the parties here have identified emergency legislation in effect at the time the case was argued, we do not have before us any indication of more recent actions taken by the Council. [8] McIntosh v. Washington, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 744, 753 (1978) quoting D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1-121(a). [9] See, e. g., Kennedy v. City of Newark, 29 N.J. 178, 186-87 , 148 A.2d 473, 477-78 (1959), where the New Jersey Supreme Court liberally construed powers given municipalities under a home rule act, favoring local action. 1980Although the parties here have identified emergency legislation in effect at the time the case was argued, we do not have before us any indication of more recent actions taken by the Council. [8] McIntosh v. Washington, D.C.App., 395 A.2d 744, 753 (1978) quoting D.C.Code 1978 Supp., § 1-121(a). [9] See, e. g., Kennedy v. City of Newark, 29 N.J. 178, 186-87 , 148 A.2d 473, 477-78 (1959), where the New Jersey Supreme Court liberally construed powers given municipalities under a home rule act, favoring local action. | 1 | 1 |
Paget v. Logangreen2 sentences1980In Paget v. Logan, 78 Wash.2d 349 , 474 P.2d 247 (1970) (en banc) the court, in discussing whether a matter was legislative or administrative in nature, confronted the issue of what impact the separation of governmental powers, as established by a home rule charter much like that of the District of Columbia, had on the propriety of the initiative there in question, and said: Further emphasizing our view in the instant case is the intervention of King County’s home rule charter which, by its terms, precisely divides legislative and administrative functions between the county council and the exe 1980In Paget v. Logan, 78 Wash.2d 349 , 474 P.2d 247 (1970) (en banc) the court, in discussing whether a matter was legislative or administrative in nature, confronted the issue of what impact the separation of governmental powers, as established by a home rule charter much like that of the District of Columbia, had on the propriety of the initiative there in question, and said: Further emphasizing our view in the instant case is the intervention of King County’s home rule charter which, by its terms, precisely divides legislative and administrative functions between the county council and the exe | 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 |
|---|---|---|
New York v. Harris
green
2 sentences2010I do so based on a straightforward application of New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), where the Supreme Court held that: where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton. 2010I do so based on a straightforward application of New York v. Harris, 495 U.S. 14 , 110 S.Ct. 1640 , 109 L.Ed.2d 13 (1990), where the Supreme Court held that: where the police have probable cause to arrest a suspect, the exclusionary rule does not bar the State’s use of a statement made by the defendant outside of his home, even though the statement is taken after an arrest made in the home in violation of Payton. | 2 | 1992–2010 |
Minnesota v. Carter
green
2 sentences1999However, the Court went on to note that while "an overnight guest in a home may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment,... one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not." Id. 1999However, the Court went on to note that while “an overnight guest in a home may claim the protection of the Fourth Amendment, ... one who is merely present with the consent of the householder may not.” Id. | 1 | 1999–1999 |
Bahn Ex Rel. Farm Bureau Mutual Automobile Insurance v. Shalev
green
1 sentence1971App., 125 A.2d 678 (1956) and Morris v. Byrd, D.C.Mun.App., 131 A.2d 743 (1957), the trial court found that the general release obtained by Middleton was a good defense to Home’s claim. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
Morris v. Byrd
green
1 sentence1971App., 125 A.2d 678 (1956) and Morris v. Byrd, D.C.Mun.App., 131 A.2d 743 (1957), the trial court found that the general release obtained by Middleton was a good defense to Home’s claim. | 1 | 1971–1971 |
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.