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 1984–2024 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 W.M.green1 sentence2024W.M., 851 A.2d at 455-56; Samuels, 435 A.2d at 395 . | 1 | 1 |
Boekeloo v. Board of Review of City of Clintongreen1 sentence2006See, e.g., Boekeloo v. Bd. of Review, 529 N.W.2d 275, 278 (Iowa 1995), and cases cited there. | 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 LH
green
2 sentences1995After a review of the complete record, the court concluded that the parents did not merit a third opportunity to become "acceptable parents" and granted the "TPR motion." On appeal to this court, the GAL who prosecuted the TPR proceeding and who may be "uniquely familiar with the facts ... and the parties" ( In re L.H., supra, 634 A.2d at 1233 ), had relocated her offices and left no forwarding address with this court. 1995After a review of the complete record, the court concluded that the parents did not merit a third opportunity to become “acceptable parents” and granted the “TPR motion.” On appeal to this court, the GAL who prosecuted the TPR proceeding and who may be “uniquely familiar with the facts ... and the parties” (In re L.H., supra, 634 A.2d at 1233 ), had relocated her offices and left no forwarding address with this court. | 2 | 1995–1995 |
Samuels v. United States
green
1 sentence2024W.M., 851 A.2d at 455-56; Samuels, 435 A.2d at 395 . | 1 | 2024–2024 |
United States v. John Hoffman, A/K/A John Joseph, United States of America v. Bertsfield Smithen
green
2 sentences1997Because counsel had not “laid any evidentiary foundation for those assertions — by, for example, asking one of the officers on cross-examination whether the plastic bags were (or could have been) tested for fingerprints, and whether standard procedure required such testing— [counsel’s] argument was improper.” Id. at 25 , 964 F.2d at 25 . 1997Because counsel had not “laid any evidentiary foundation for those assertions — by, for example, asking one of the officers on cross-examination whether the plastic bags were (or could have been) tested for fingerprints, and whether standard procedure required such testing— [counsel’s] argument was improper.” Id. at 25 , 964 F.2d at 25 . | 1 | 1997–1997 |
Robson v. Eva's Super Market, Inc.
green
1 sentence1984"It is unnecessary in this case to decide what theory of liability is appropriate when the employer's agents and supervisors are the source of ... sexual harassment." Id. at 249 n. 5. 31 .The burden on the defendant(s) is a burden of production: the defendant(s) must produce admissible evidence which would allow the trier of fact rationally to conclude that the defense has been established and the plaintiffs prima facie case rebutted. | 1 | 1984–1984 |
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.