Lewis motion (District of Columbia) · Go Syfert
← District of Columbia issues

Lewis motion in District of Columbia

6 District of Columbia opinions name it 1 courts 1980–2020 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 (7)

CaseFollowedCited
In Re WMgreen
dc · 2004 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2020–2020
2 sentences

2020See In re W.M., 851 A.2d at 449 n.22 (noting that the Lewis framework is appropriate for addressing challenges to executive action).

2020See In re W.M., 851 A.2d at 449 n.22 (noting that the Lewis framework is appropriate for addressing challenges to executive action).

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

2015We reverse a trial court’s denial of motion for mistrial “only if it appears irrational, unreasonable, or so extreme that the failure to reverse would result in a miscarriage of justice.” Coleman v. United States, 779 A.2d 297, 302 (D.C.2001) (internal citation and quotation marks omitted).

11
Keefe Co. v. Americable International, Inc.green
dc · 2000 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2007–2007
1 sentence

2007See Keefe Co. v. Americable Int’l, Inc., 755 A.2d 469, 475 (D.C.2000); see also 23 Williston on Contracts § 63:15 (4th ed. 2002) ("question whether a party has repudiated a contract is one of fact”). 10 .

11
Jefferson v. OURISMAN CHEVROLET CO., INC.green
dc · 1992 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001See Bernard, supra, 624 A.2d at 1219 (citing Jefferson, supra, 615 A.2d at 585 ).

2001See Bernard, supra, 624 A.2d at 1219 (citing Jefferson, supra, 615 A.2d at 585 ).

11
Bernard v. Calkinsgreen
dc · 1993 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 2001–2001
2 sentences

2001See Bernard, supra, 624 A.2d at 1219 (citing Jefferson, supra, 615 A.2d at 585 ).

2001See Bernard, supra, 624 A.2d at 1219 (citing Jefferson, supra, 615 A.2d at 585 ).

11
Winters v. United Statesgreen
dc · 1974 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1991–1991
2 sentences

1991See Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530, 534 (D.C.1974) (en banc). [5] In this note, the jury also asked, "What is the definition of intent?" [6] In response to the jury's second note, counsel for appellant Lewis moved for a mistrial on the ground that the jury did not understand that the charge against his client was not distribution but possession with intent to distribute.

1991See Winters v. United States, 317 A.2d 530, 534 (D.C.1974) (en banc). .

11
CITIZENS BLDG. & L. ASS'N OF MONTGOMERY CO. v. Shepardgreen
dc · 1972 · cited in 1 District of Columbia opinions naming this issue, 1980–1980
1 sentence

1980See Citizens Building & Loan Association of Montgomery County v. Shepard, supra; Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Hill, supra. Although we have concluded that Mrs. Lewis’ motion can qualify under the criteria of Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b)(1), the decision of whether to grant the motion is equitable in nature and other factors must be considered.

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
Brady v. Maryland green
scotus · 1963
2 sentences

2015Butler and Lewis’s Asserted Brady Violations Butler and Lewis claim that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motions for mistrial based on two asserted violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

2015Butler and Lewis’s Asserted Brady Violations Butler and Lewis claim that the trial court abused its discretion by denying their motions for mistrial based on two asserted violations of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 , 83 S.Ct. 1194 , 10 L.Ed.2d 215 (1963).

12015–2015
Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Hill green
dc · 1969
1 sentence

1980See Citizens Building & Loan Association of Montgomery County v. Shepard, supra; Railway Express Agency, Inc. v. Hill, supra. Although we have concluded that Mrs. Lewis’ motion can qualify under the criteria of Super.Ct.Civ.R. 60(b)(1), the decision of whether to grant the motion is equitable in nature and other factors must be considered.

11980–1980

Where else courts name it

GA 41 (1977–2025) TX 28 (1967–2025) OH 25 (1996–2026) CA 22 (1906–2026) IN 21 (1982–2019) PA 20 (1840–2023) AL 19 (1983–2015) FL 14 (1986–2021) IL 14 (1980–2025) LA 11 (1980–2026) MO 9 (1981–2015) WA 9 (1978–2024) MT 9 (1988–2020) CO 8 (1994–2024) NY 8 (1983–2014) MN 8 (1996–2016) KS 6 (1995–2024) MI 6 (1970–2024) DC 6 (1980–2020) IA 5 (1982–2018) NV 5 (1980–2021) AZ 5 (2004–2023) TN 4 (2007–2009) AR 4 (2017–2023) MS 4 (2000–2013) HI 4 (1996–2021) SC 4 (1996–2016) KY 3 (2021–2025) WV 3 (2006–2026) MD 3 (1997–2017) CT 3 (1996–2014) MA 3 (2001–2025) DE 2 (1998–2017) ID 2 (1993–2022) VI 2 (2023–2024) WY 2 (1986–2025) UT 2 (2020–2024)

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