6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1986–2010 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 |
|---|---|---|
Rhema Christian Center v. District of Columbia Board of Zoning Adjustmentgreen2 sentences2000Nor could the Mayor’s Agent’s order be viewed as an open invitation to relitigate the “special merit” conclusion made in 1987, because “the doctrine of issue preclusion ... prevents the same parties from relitigating an issue actually decided in a previous final adjudication, whether on the same or a different claim.” Rhema Christian Ctr. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 515 A.2d 189, 193 (D.C.1986) (citations omitted). 1998Issue preclusion applies to agency proceedings in certain circumstances, see Oubre v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 630 A.2d 699, 703 (D.C.1993), but the doctrine only precludes parties from “relitigating an issue actually decided in a previous, final adjudication,” see Rhema Christian Ctr. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 515 A.2d 189, 193 (D.C.1986) (emphasis added). | 2 | 2 |
Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breedengreen2 sentences2003To prove that claim, the plaintiff must prove among other things that the defendant’s conduct in making the information available for inclusion in the credit report was ‘extreme and outrageous conduct.’ Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breeden, 665 A.2d 929, 935 (D.C.1995). 2003To prove that claim, the *177 plaintiff must prove among other things that the defendant's conduct in making the information available for inclusion in the credit report was `extreme and outrageous conduct.' Jonathan Woodner Co. v. Breeden, 665 A.2d 929, 935 (D.C. 1995). | 1 | 1 |
Oubre v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Servicesgreen1 sentence1998Issue preclusion applies to agency proceedings in certain circumstances, see Oubre v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 630 A.2d 699, 703 (D.C.1993), but the doctrine only precludes parties from “relitigating an issue actually decided in a previous, final adjudication,” see Rhema Christian Ctr. v. District of Columbia Bd. of Zoning Adjustment, 515 A.2d 189, 193 (D.C.1986) (emphasis added). | 1 | 1 |
Joseph Segal, and Western States Telephone Co., Inc., Etc. v. American Telephone and Telegraph Company, Inc., Etc.green1 sentence1986Allen, 449 U.S. at 94 , 101 S.Ct. at 414 ; Henderson, 439 A.2d at 485 ; Segal v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Inc., 606 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir.1979); Restatement, Second, Judgments §§ 17(3), 27. | 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 |
|---|---|---|
Yeager v. United States
green
2 sentences2010The Court treated “the jury’s inability to reach a verdict on the insider trading counts [as] a nonevent[,]” 129 S.Ct. at 2367 , “holding] that the consideration of hung counts has no place in the issue-preclusion analysis.” Id. at 2368 . 2010The Court treated “the jury’s inability to reach a verdict on the insider trading counts [as] a nonevent[,]” 129 S.Ct. at 2367 , “holding] that the consideration of hung counts has no place in the issue-preclusion analysis.” Id. at 2368 . | 2 | 2010–2010 |
Henderson v. Snider Bros., Inc.
green
1 sentence1986Allen, 449 U.S. at 94 , 101 S.Ct. at 414 ; Henderson, 439 A.2d at 485 ; Segal v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Inc., 606 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir.1979); Restatement, Second, Judgments §§ 17(3), 27. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
Allen v. McCurry
green
2 sentences1986Allen, 449 U.S. at 94 , 101 S.Ct. at 414 ; Henderson, 439 A.2d at 485 ; Segal v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Inc., 606 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir.1979); Restatement, Second, Judgments §§ 17(3), 27. 1986Allen, 449 U.S. at 94 , 101 S.Ct. at 414 ; Henderson, 439 A.2d at 485 ; Segal v. American Telephone & Telegraph Co., Inc., 606 F.2d 842, 845 (9th Cir.1979); Restatement, Second, Judgments §§ 17(3), 27. | 1 | 1986–1986 |
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.