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 1973–2022 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 |
|---|---|---|
In Re Zdravkovichgreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., In re Frank, 252 A.3d at 490 (imposing disbarment as the functional reciprocal discipline of resignation while under disciplinary investigation); In re Nosal, 112 A.3d 919, 922 (D.C. 2015) (“We will not now hold a de novo evidentiary hearing after respondent deliberately waived his right to participate in the Illinois hearing.” (italics omitted)); In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (“Put simply, reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipline.”). 2022See, e.g., In re Frank, 252 A.3d at 490 (imposing disbarment as the functional reciprocal discipline of resignation while under disciplinary investigation); In re Nosal, 112 A.3d 919, 922 (D.C. 2015) (“We will not now hold a de novo evidentiary hearing after respondent deliberately waived his right to participate in the Illinois hearing.” (italics omitted)); In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (“Put simply, reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipline.”). | 2 | 2 |
In re Chester W. Nosalgreen2 sentences2022See, e.g., In re Frank, 252 A.3d at 490 (imposing disbarment as the functional reciprocal discipline of resignation while under disciplinary investigation); In re Nosal, 112 A.3d 919, 922 (D.C. 2015) (“We will not now hold a de novo evidentiary hearing after respondent deliberately waived his right to participate in the Illinois hearing.” (italics omitted)); In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (“Put simply, reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipline.”). 2022See, e.g., In re Frank, 252 A.3d at 490 (imposing disbarment as the functional reciprocal discipline of resignation while under disciplinary investigation); In re Nosal, 112 A.3d 919, 922 (D.C. 2015) (“We will not now hold a de novo evidentiary hearing after respondent deliberately waived his right to participate in the Illinois hearing.” (italics omitted)); In re Zdravkovich, 831 A.2d 964, 969 (D.C. 2003) (“Put simply, reciprocal discipline proceedings are not a forum to reargue the foreign discipline.”). | 1 | 1 |
In re Speightsgreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., In re Mance, 869 A.2d 339 , 341 n.8 (D.C. 2005) (per curiam) (“well-respected” defense attorney sanctioned for Rule 1.1 violation); In re Drew, 693 A.2d 1127 (D.C. 1997) (per curiam) (suspending attorney for Rule 1.1(a) and (b) violations in the course of representing two defendants in separate criminal appeals); In re Douglass, 745 A.2d 307 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (publically censuring an attorney for violating several rules, including Rule 1.1, in connection to various aspects of probate representation). 15 173 A.3d at 135. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Mancegreen1 sentence2020See, e.g., In re Mance, 869 A.2d 339 , 341 n.8 (D.C. 2005) (per curiam) (“well-respected” defense attorney sanctioned for Rule 1.1 violation); In re Drew, 693 A.2d 1127 (D.C. 1997) (per curiam) (suspending attorney for Rule 1.1(a) and (b) violations in the course of representing two defendants in separate criminal appeals); In re Douglass, 745 A.2d 307 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (publically censuring an attorney for violating several rules, including Rule 1.1, in connection to various aspects of probate representation). 15 173 A.3d at 135. | 1 | 1 |
In Re Steelegreen2 sentences2015See In re Steele, 914 A.2d 679, 681 (D.C.2007) (treating as waived additional arguments against a Florida Bar Counsel proceeding that respondent declined to attend); see also In re Zdravkovich, supra, 831 A.2d at 969 (“Underlying our strict standard in reciprocal bar discipline cases is not only the notion that another jurisdiction has already afforded the attorney a full disciplinary proceeding, but also the idea that there is merit in according deference, for its own sake, to the actions of other jurisdictions with respect to the attorneys over whom we share supervisory authority.”). 2015See In re Steele, 914 A.2d 679, 681 (D.C.2007) (treating as waived additional arguments against a Florida Bar Counsel proceeding that respondent declined to attend); see also In re Zdravkovich, supra, 831 A.2d at 969 (“Underlying our strict standard in reciprocal bar discipline cases is not only the notion that another jurisdiction has already afforded the attorney a full disciplinary proceeding, but also the idea that there is merit in according deference, for its own sake, to the actions of other jurisdictions with respect to the attorneys over whom we share supervisory authority.”). | 1 | 1 |
McCray v. Illinoisgreen2 sentences1981See id. at 313-14 , 87 S.Ct. at 1063-1064 . 1981See id. at 313-14 , 87 S.Ct. at 1063-1064 . | 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 Drew
green
1 sentence2020See, e.g., In re Mance, 869 A.2d 339 , 341 n.8 (D.C. 2005) (per curiam) (“well-respected” defense attorney sanctioned for Rule 1.1 violation); In re Drew, 693 A.2d 1127 (D.C. 1997) (per curiam) (suspending attorney for Rule 1.1(a) and (b) violations in the course of representing two defendants in separate criminal appeals); In re Douglass, 745 A.2d 307 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (publically censuring an attorney for violating several rules, including Rule 1.1, in connection to various aspects of probate representation). 15 173 A.3d at 135. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
In re Douglass
green
1 sentence2020See, e.g., In re Mance, 869 A.2d 339 , 341 n.8 (D.C. 2005) (per curiam) (“well-respected” defense attorney sanctioned for Rule 1.1 violation); In re Drew, 693 A.2d 1127 (D.C. 1997) (per curiam) (suspending attorney for Rule 1.1(a) and (b) violations in the course of representing two defendants in separate criminal appeals); In re Douglass, 745 A.2d 307 (D.C. 2000) (per curiam) (publically censuring an attorney for violating several rules, including Rule 1.1, in connection to various aspects of probate representation). 15 173 A.3d at 135. | 1 | 2020–2020 |
Country Mutual Insurance v. Knight
green
2 sentences1990Actually, the result in Country Mutual turns on Illinois’ rule— different from the District's — that the running of the statute of limitations creates a vested right which cannot be taken away by statute. 40 Ill.2d at 428 , 240 N.E.2d at 615 . 1990Actually, the result in Country Mutual turns on Illinois’ rule— different from the District's — that the running of the statute of limitations creates a vested right which cannot be taken away by statute. 40 Ill.2d at 428 , 240 N.E.2d at 615 . | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Simmons v. District Unemployment Compensation Board
green
2 sentences1973Because any final disposition on this record must be controlled by Simmons, supra, and Feldman v. Board of Pharmacy of District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 160 A.2d 100 (1960), it would in our view be unrealistic to expect that another hearing before an Illinois hearing referee would be productive of a useful result. 1973Because any final disposition on this record must be controlled by Simmons, supra, and Feldman v. Board of Pharmacy of District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 160 A.2d 100 (1960), it would in our view be unrealistic to expect that another hearing before an Illinois hearing referee would be productive of a useful result. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Feldman v. Board of Pharmacy of Dist. of Columbia
green
2 sentences1973Because any final disposition on this record must be controlled by Simmons, supra, and Feldman v. Board of Pharmacy of District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 160 A.2d 100 (1960), it would in our view be unrealistic to expect that another hearing before an Illinois hearing referee would be productive of a useful result. 1973Because any final disposition on this record must be controlled by Simmons, supra, and Feldman v. Board of Pharmacy of District of Columbia, D.C.Mun.App., 160 A.2d 100 (1960), it would in our view be unrealistic to expect that another hearing before an Illinois hearing referee would be productive of a useful result. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
Hill v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Board
green
2 sentences1973Bd., D.C.App., 281 A.2d 433 (1971). [6] The administrative record consisted of (1) the standard forms identified as "IB-2 reports" upon which petitioner was required to report weekly the number, nature and date of each job contact, and (2) the testimony of petitioner and her witnesses adduced at the hearing conducted on December 4, 1971, by the Illinois hearing referee. 1973Bd., D.C.App., 281 A.2d 433 (1971). [6] The administrative record consisted of (1) the standard forms identified as "IB-2 reports" upon which petitioner was required to report weekly the number, nature and date of each job contact, and (2) the testimony of petitioner and her witnesses adduced at the hearing conducted on December 4, 1971, by the Illinois hearing referee. | 1 | 1973–1973 |
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.