individualized hearing (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

individualized hearing in District of Columbia

6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 2001–2016 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.

Followed or applied (5)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re RWSgreen
nd · 2007 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014In re Staley, 67 Ill.2d 33 , 7 Ill.Dec. 85 , 364 N.E.2d 72, 73-74 (1977) (“In the absence of ... a showing [of necessity] ... an accused cannot be tried in shackles whether there is to be a bench trial or a trial by jury.”); In re R.W.S., 728 N.W.2d 326, 331 (N.D.2007) (“[T]he juvenile court had a duty to exercise its discretion when Richard requested that his handcuffs be removed during his adjudicatory hearing.”); State ex rel.

2014In re Staley, 364 N.E.2d 72, 73-74 (Ill. 1977) (“In the absence of . . . a showing [of necessity] . . . an accused cannot be tried in shackles whether there is to be a bench trial or a trial by jury.”); In re R.W.S., 728 N.W.2d 326, 331 (N.D. 2007) (“[T]he juvenile court had a duty to exercise its discretion when Richard requested that his handcuffs be removed during his adjudicatory hearing.”); State ex rel.

22
People v. Staleygreen
ill · 1977 · cited in 2 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2014–2014
2 sentences

2014In re Staley, 67 Ill.2d 33 , 7 Ill.Dec. 85 , 364 N.E.2d 72, 73-74 (1977) (“In the absence of ... a showing [of necessity] ... an accused cannot be tried in shackles whether there is to be a bench trial or a trial by jury.”); In re R.W.S., 728 N.W.2d 326, 331 (N.D.2007) (“[T]he juvenile court had a duty to exercise its discretion when Richard requested that his handcuffs be removed during his adjudicatory hearing.”); State ex rel.

2014In re Staley, 67 Ill.2d 33 , 7 Ill.Dec. 85 , 364 N.E.2d 72, 73-74 (1977) (“In the absence of ... a showing [of necessity] ... an accused cannot be tried in shackles whether there is to be a bench trial or a trial by jury.”); In re R.W.S., 728 N.W.2d 326, 331 (N.D.2007) (“[T]he juvenile court had a duty to exercise its discretion when Richard requested that his handcuffs be removed during his adjudicatory hearing.”); State ex rel.

22
United States v. Raymond Wagstaffgreen
ca4 · 1989 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015The evidence is insufficient to convict if, in order to convict, the jury is required to cross the bounds of permissible inference and enter the forbidden territory of conjecture and speculation.” Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125, 134 (D.C. 2001) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Wagstaff, 865 F.2d 626, 629 (4th Cir. 1989) (to determine whether the fear or intimidation requirement for robbery has been met, courts may not “substitute[] a set of assumptions about the person taking money . . . for the individualized analysis of that person’s

2015The evidence is insufficient to convict if, in order to convict, the jury is required to cross the bounds of permissible inference and enter the forbidden territory of conjecture and speculation.” Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125, 134 (D.C.2001) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Wagstaff, 865 F.2d 626, 629 (4th Cir.1989) (to determine whether the fear or intimidation requirement for robbery has been met, courts may not “substitute[ ] a set of assumptions about the person taking money ... for the individualized analysis of that person’s act

11
Rivas v. United Statesgreen
dc · 2001 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2015–2015
2 sentences

2015The evidence is insufficient to convict if, in order to convict, the jury is required to cross the bounds of permissible inference and enter the forbidden territory of conjecture and speculation.” Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125, 134 (D.C. 2001) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Wagstaff, 865 F.2d 626, 629 (4th Cir. 1989) (to determine whether the fear or intimidation requirement for robbery has been met, courts may not “substitute[] a set of assumptions about the person taking money . . . for the individualized analysis of that person’s

2015The evidence is insufficient to convict if, in order to convict, the jury is required to cross the bounds of permissible inference and enter the forbidden territory of conjecture and speculation.” Rivas v. United States, 783 A.2d 125, 134 (D.C.2001) (en banc) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also United States v. Wagstaff, 865 F.2d 626, 629 (4th Cir.1989) (to determine whether the fear or intimidation requirement for robbery has been met, courts may not “substitute[ ] a set of assumptions about the person taking money ... for the individualized analysis of that person’s act

11
Sutton v. United Air Lines, Inc.red
scotus · 1999 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001In Sutton the Supreme Court disagreed with the EEOC Guidelines, asserting that "[t]he agency guidelines’ directive that persons be judged in their uncorrected or unmitigated state runs directly counter to the individualized inquiry mandated by the ADA.” Sutton, supra, 527 U.S. at 483, 119 S.Ct. 2139 . 2 .

2001In Sutton the Supreme Court disagreed with the EEOC Guidelines, asserting that "[t]he agency guidelines’ directive that persons be judged in their uncorrected or unmitigated state runs directly counter to the individualized inquiry mandated by the ADA.” Sutton, supra, 527 U.S. at 483, 119 S.Ct. 2139 . 2 .

11

Distinguished, questioned or overruled (0)

CaseNegativeCited
No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in District of Columbia. Read the followed side critically anyway.

Also cited on this issue (2)

CaseCitedYears
Smith v. Organization of Foster Families for Equality & Reform green
scotus · 1977
2 sentences

2016Five years after Stanley, the Court shed more light on the constitutional nature and bounds of the familial liberty interest in Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal & Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (1977).

2016Five years after Stanley, the Court shed more light on the constitutional nature and bounds of the familial liberty interest in Smith v. Org. of Foster Families for Equal & Reform, 431 U.S. 816 (1977).

22016–2016
Stanley v. Illinois green
scotus · 1972
2 sentences

2016The Court thus held that “the Due Process Clause mandates” an individualized hearing to assess a parent’s fitness “when the issue at stake is-the dismemberment of his family.” 9 Id. at 658 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 .

2016The Court thus held that “the Due Process Clause mandates” an individualized hearing to assess a parent’s fitness “when the issue at stake is-the dismemberment of his family.” 9 Id. at 658 , 92 S.Ct. 1208 .

12016–2016

Statutes the citing opinions construe

DC § D.C. Code § 11-1732 (3)

Counted by distinct opinions that both name this issue and are annotated to the section; sections every opinion cites regardless of issue are not filtered here, so read the counts against the total above.

Where else courts name it

WA 255 (1984–2026) CA 59 (2003–2026) IA 45 (1995–2025) MA 27 (1993–2025) IL 25 (1988–2025) FL 20 (1993–2026) TX 19 (2004–2025) OH 19 (1999–2022) SC 18 (2014–2026) SD 11 (2003–2026) OR 11 (2013–2024) CT 11 (1999–2025) AL 11 (2003–2011) AZ 10 (1985–2026) NM 9 (1997–2022) CO 8 (1987–2020) PA 8 (1989–2023) NY 8 (1976–2026) MO 6 (1997–2020) DC 6 (2001–2016) KY 6 (2018–2025) NC 5 (1988–2018) MS 5 (2001–2017) IN 4 (2010–2013) MD 4 (2005–2021) AK 4 (1996–2023) AR 4 (2009–2019) GA 4 (2014–2018) OK 4 (2003–2023) UT 4 (2002–2024) MI 4 (2007–2020) LA 3 (1997–2007) WI 3 (2015–2020) NJ 2 (1996–2020) WV 2 (2002–2023) NE 2 (2003–2016) WY 2 (1986–2014) HI 2 (2002–2004) DE 2 (2015–2019)

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.

← Caselaw search · G Cite Topics · Brief Check